Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Disability Living Allowance

[Relevant document: Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1997–98, on Disability Living Allowance (HC 641).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I am speaking instead of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, who, unfortunately, has injured his back. Although members of our Committee do not have the power to send him a mobility allowance, we certainly send him our best wishes.
The background to the Select Committee report is increasing recognition of disability in our community and, as a consequence, a growing proportion of the social security budget going to disability benefits. The report, which is the fourth from the Select Committee, deals with disability living allowance. Our inquiry focused on two matters: DLA in general and the so-called benefit integrity project, from the Department of Social Security. We conducted our inquiry at a time of growing concern about intentions regarding disability benefits, which many hon. Members will have picked up on in their constituencies.
The history of DLA goes back quite a long way. Invalid tricycles were introduced for war pensioners in the early 1920s, and more recently, in the 1970s, mobility and attendance allowances were introduced. They gave way to DLA in 1992. DLA is a benefit that is based on care and the mobility needs of people with disabilities, for people who become disabled before the age of 65. Its structure is in some respects complex, because the care component has three rates—the highest is £51.30 a week and the lowest £13.60. There are also two rates for mobility.
To the surprise of Governments and of Parliament, the number of people claiming DLA has increased dramatically since 1992, from 1 million in those early days to almost 2 million by 1997–98. By any measure, that is a surprising increase which requires explanation. The puzzle about DLA is compounded by the fact that there is considerable evidence that some people are not claiming their entitlement; in the jargon, there is a take-up problem. Estimates vary, but perhaps as many as 50 per cent. of eligible people are not claiming DLA.
Those two factors—an increasing number of claimants and evidence of DLA not being taken up—suggest the need for review. The Government are conducting a review

of disability benefits, which we welcome. In our report, from which I shall quote carefully to reflect the view of members of the Committee, we
recommended an urgent review of all aspects of DLA.
We add:
In its present form, DLA is an unstable benefit and its future … almost impossible to predict.
That is partly because of court decisions, which have changed the basis for eligibility, and because of flawed administrative procedures, which fail
in terms of simplicity and workability.
Much of the DLA procedure is based on self-assessment, and rightly so in many respects. It is important that there is not just a medical model, and that a person can state details of disability and needs, but we are not convinced that the balance is properly struck between self-assessment on the one hand and objective functional criteria and medical evidence on the other. We recommend that the Government look at that again. We also recommend reconsideration of methods of reviewing claims and dealing with changed circumstances as a matter of urgency.
The number of claimants raises the issue of what DLA is intended for. Who are the target group? We recommend that the Government should decide whether greater targeting on more severely disabled people would represent a better approach. We also state that, whatever the criteria in the future, a greater effort must be made to ensure full take-up. Many of the people whom we are discussing have serious needs. We must frame policies that can be easily understood, so that those people can claim the allowance to which they are entitled. We also ask the Government to consider how certain groups who are currently excluded from DLA, such as those with mental health problems, can be helped in the future.
Other members of the Select Committee may want to say more about DLA. Indeed, hon. Members who are not on the Committee may want to talk about it—that, after all, is the purpose of the debate. Before I sit down, however, I want to say a little about the benefit integrity project, which, I think, has implications for the relationship between the House and the Executive.
The project was initiated during the dying days of the last Administration. It was based on a desire to attack fraud or, as it might be described, incorrectness in the programme. One estimate suggested that DLA fraud could amount to some £499 million a year. It is clear that the Department received money from the Treasury to pursue a benefit integrity project designed to cut costs. I should add that DSS officials now say that fraud is probably minimal, rather than amounting to the large figure which I have mentioned.
The Committee is seriously concerned about the genesis and implementation of the benefit integrity project. In the run-up to the launch of BIP, as it is known, no consultation whatever was undertaken with groups representing those affected, despite an undertaking by the then Minister of State responsible for disabled people. The Committee does not blame that former Minister, Alistair Burt, whose good intentions regarding consultation we respect; nor do we blame current Ministers. Our criticisms are levelled at officialdom in the DSS. We believe that the failure to undertake even the slightest consultation was a serious error which has had serious consequences.


BIP involved people being visited in their homes, or receiving postal inquiries about their entitlement to the higher rates of benefit. The timing is important. BIP was formally launched on 28 April 1997, just three days before the general election. The first questionnaires were issued on 6 May 1997; I suspect that the minds of hon. Members were on other matters then. It was on that day that ministerial responsibilities were announced. The Minister responsible, Lady Hollis of Heigham, was not even made aware of BIP's existence until 29 May 1997, when, we are told, she took a telephone call from departmental officials at Preston railway station. Despite that incident, it is possible that Preston railway station will never achieve the prominence of, say, the Finland station in European history, but we were puzzled by the fact that the Minister was only informed by officials at that time.
The Committee believes that launching BIP without proper ministerial authority was a
very serious error of judgement.
There are clear general election guidelines for officials which say that no new action should be launched during an election campaign if it is of a long-term character, and we think that those guidelines were ignored. We have recommended to the permanent secretary at the DSS that, in conjunction with her opposite numbers in other Departments, she should renew the rules of conduct and good practice in regard to general elections, to minimise the risk of such errors of judgment occurring in the future.
The Committee has put the benefit integrity project on what we describe as a six-month probation, and has asked Ministers to report to us on its progress by the end of July. We had considered calling for the suspension of the project, but, given the improvements that have been made, we thought that a probation period was more appropriate.
This matter has serious consequences for some of the people who are most at risk in our society. It has an important impact on people with major disabilities. We were struck by the witnesses with disabilities who gave evidence to the Committee, and we thank them for doing so. We particularly remember a woman with muscular dystrophy, who was clearly very ill and needed artificial breathing aids. She had been visited by officials, but it turned out later that her forms had been filled in incorrectly, and, although she needed virtually around-the-clock care, her higher rate of disability living allowance had been withdrawn. Apparently her general practitioner said that, if that had happened to her, no one could possibly be entitled to the allowance. The GP's disgust was shared by the Committee members who saw that brave witness.
I was also struck by the fact that, when we questioned senior DSS officials—including those directly responsible for BIP—it became clear that, despite the controversy that the visits were running into, none had seen fit to accompany their junior officials to see what was actually happening. The gap between policy and administration in offices and what was happening in people's homes is lamentable. It may explain why the thread of common sense and human compassion failed to run through this part of social administration.
As well as asking for a review of the benefit, we urge Government to

consider publishing a draft Bill, following the normal process of consultation, to allow a full public debate to take place before legislation to reform DLA is introduced into Parliament.
I hope that our report will help the House in its deliberation on these important matters.

Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome the opportunity to refer to a constituent's experience of the benefit integrity project, which astonished me so much that I concluded that the project, in so far as it affected the severely disabled, should be scrapped immediately.
I have no problem with the original concept of BIP as envisaged by the last Government. It was a sensible response to the outcome of the 1996 benefit review, which suggested that 27 per cent. of claimants' awards were incorrect, and that the figure for fraud amounted to 16.7 per cent. No responsible Government could ignore an estimated annual loss of £500 million in overpayments due to fraud.
The Select Committee is right to question the Department's judgment in launching BIP during the week of a general election and without the benefit of consultation with outside bodies, which was originally promised by the Minister. That is the main source of the problems that have arisen, which, in my view, have caused the project to be fatally flawed in the context of the severely disabled.
I knew little about BIP at the time, although I welcomed it as further evidence of the last Government's determination to control public expenditure, and saw it as a response to previous Select Committees' demands for a better way of combating fraud.
In January, my constituent, Mrs. Lesley Burton, wrote to draw my attention to the problems that she and her disabled husband were experiencing with the Department of Social Security and the disability living allowance. This is the same Lesley Burton to whom the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) referred. With the greatest courage and determination, she came to the House on 25 March to give her testimony to the Select Committee.
Mrs. Burton told the Committee that she has had muscular dystrophy—a progressive muscle-wasting disease—for 35 years. She, will never get better. She had been receiving the higher-rate mobility component paid with the highest-rate care component. She gave evidence about her experience of the visiting officer from the Benefits Agency under the benefit integrity project. I shall not repeat it in detail, because it is reported on page 47 of the report.
The outcome of the visit was that the adjudication officer decided that Mrs. Burton satisfied only the criteria for an award of the middle-rate care component. The news that her benefits were to be reduced obviously came as a distressing surprise in view of the fact that she is physically completely dependent 24 hours a day on people, on life support machinery and on her two electronic wheelchairs. Unlike other equally severely disabled people, who understandably may not have had the will to challenge that outcome, my constituent did and, as a result, her entitlement to the highest rate of care component was restored, as was her husband's—but that is another story.
In preparing her testimony for the Select Committee, Mrs. Burton obtained a copy of the DLA form completed by the visiting officer, from which it became immediately


clear that the officer had had an entirely inadequate appreciation and understanding of my constituent's disabilities. As Mrs. Burton told the Select Committee:
I wish I could express to you my disbelief on reading page 24"—
of the form—
which asks about the help I need at night. This was simply crossed through 'not applicable'. The questions were not asked. The last five pages she simply ignored. Nowhere on the form is there any mention of the suction equipment I could not live without. … That without the ventilator at night I would die.
She also said that the form did not show that
I need someone with me all night. That I am dependent 24 hours a day.
The Minister, Baroness Hollis, referred my letter to the Secretary of State to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who replied to me, as did the screening officer of the ombudsman. When I had received a reply from Baroness Hollis, I visited my constituent at home to meet her and to discuss our next move. Suffice it to say that any hon. Member would have been as astonished as I was, having seen my constituent's situation at first hand, that any visiting officer from the Benefits Agency should have completed a questionnaire in a way that would lead to a reduction in her benefits.
In my view, Mrs. Burton's testimony to the Select Committee about her condition was entirely accurate. Therefore, I must conclude that the experience and training of at least one BIP visiting officer are inadequate. To how many more does that apply? I must also conclude that the DLA questionnaire is inadequate to establish a true appreciation of the complicated nature of disabilities, such as those of my constituent, although, to be fair, in her case key questions were not asked.
It is obvious that notification of a reduction in benefits to genuinely severely disabled people, such as my constituent, and especially to the more vulnerable and frail, must cause the most terrible distress. I regret that the chief executive of the Benefits Agency did not apologise in his letter to me, but tried to discredit my constituent's recollection of the visit. I have sought an apology from him. I have asked the ombudsman to accept the comparison of the questionnaire completed by the visiting officer with the one completed by my constituent as sufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation of her complaint of maladministration.
Far from establishing fraud in cases of severely disabled people in which there is little scope for fraud, the benefit integrity project is an expensive exercise that is causing great distress to the most disabled in our society. There is a risk of tragic misjudgments being made about the level of benefits on which people rely to sustain a minimum quality of life. I have written to the Secretary of State to urge that the most severely disabled be excluded from the benefit integrity project. I share the Select Committee's concerns and agree with the recommendations about the benefit integrity project, but I am sorry that it has not recommended the same in the report that we are debating today.

Ms Patricia Hewitt: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said in opening the debate on behalf of the Chairman of the Select Committee. I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to participate

in this inquiry as a member of the Select Committee. From the inquiry and from the experience that constituents have shared with me, I have learnt far more about the operation of disability living allowance and other disability benefits in the past six months or so than I had dreamed of before becoming a Member of Parliament.
I want to stress the appalling and intolerable complexity of the disability living allowance and, more generally, of the support system for people with disabilities. Although each part of the system has no doubt been developed with the best of intentions, it is virtually impossible for people with disabilities, their advisers or the civil servants who try to operate it to make sense of the system.
One of my constituents, a woman called Lisa, was a nurse for many years. Some 16 years ago, after a severe bout of flu, she contracted myalgic encephalomyelitis. Since then, she has suffered from not only ME, but degeneration of the spine and severe depression. In May 1996, she applied for disability living allowance. Despite the evidence of her condition, which is recognised by the World Health Organisation, and the fact that various medical specialists attested to the merits of her case, she was refused the allowance. She appealed, and in January this year she was awarded DLA care component at the middle rate, which is one of about 15 possible outcomes under the current structure.
The award was backdated to 1996 when Lisa applied for DLA. At that time, it was the rule that people awarded the care component at the middle rate were automatically deemed to be 80 per cent. disabled. Once people were judged to be 80 per cent. disabled, if they had been unable to work for several months they qualified for severe disability allowance, which is a non-contributory benefit to compensate for the fact that a person cannot work. However, between her application and the appeal that awarded her the backdated DLA, the rules were changed. From April 1997—halfway through the history of her case—only people on the higher rate of DLA care component were judged to be 80 per cent. disabled.
Although Lisa's claim for DLA has been awarded and has been backdated to 1996—at which time she would have also been entitled to severe disability allowance—as she had to go through the appeal procedure she has been refused SDA as a result of the change of rules in 1997. That is just one example of the extraordinary complexities that are inherent in the system and have forced my constituent and many others to become expert not only in managing their own disability but in understanding this abstruse part of welfare rights law. With the help of a solicitor and welfare rights officers, my constituent is now pursuing an appeal on the other aspect of her case—the claim for severe disability allowance. I intend to write to the Minister about her case but, in general, I want to reinforce the Select Committee's recommendations for a dramatic simplification of the system.
Costs are inherent in any such simplification and some cases will not be precisely covered by such new rules. However, it is clear to all those who have examined the matter and have learnt from our constituents that simplification will bring immense benefits not only to those who are trying to administer the system but, above all, to people with disabilities who are the system's intended beneficiaries. I shall illustrate the need for simplification in the context of people with disabilities who are able to undertake employment. Our report recommends a much closer and more comprehensive


review not simply of DLA but of other cash benefits, services and equipment, all of which can assist disabled people to live independently and, in many cases, to work.
Last week, I was privileged to visit the centre for integrated living in my constituency where I heard from people, many of whom with severe disability, who were in work. They included a social worker who is completely wheelchair-bound and a welfare rights advocate, an organiser at the centre, who is completely blind. Those people are assisted not simply by DLA but by access to work grants. That is a fairly new benefit, but those people are struggling because the system is complex and it is often administered by staff who know much less about the adaptations that are available than the disabled people.
I have given the example of the blind man, whose name is Aslam. He knew when he applied for employment that he needed a laptop computer with a Braille keyboard and a voice synthesiser. That is expensive equipment, but it is one of the wonders of modern technology which enables him to do a full-time job. He applied for it in early June last year and a decision was finally made by the regional office of the Department for Education and Employment towards the end of October, and I think that the equipment was provided in December. His employer was willing and able to wait but many would not have been willing to wait for the access to work grant to come through that made it possible for Aslam to be employed.
The plea by those constituents of mine is for the Select Committee's recommendation to be acted on rapidly, and they ask that staff who implement the access to work grant be given the training and support that they need to ensure that the benefit's potential is fulfilled, as it must be if the new deal for people with disabilities, which every hon. Member warmly welcomes, is to succeed.
I plead not simply for all our recommendations to be implemented but for a simplification of the system so that disabled people know the purpose of disability living allowance and of the overall system of benefits, services and adaptations in equipment. I also ask for a simplification of the gateway to those various forms of support that will provide disabled people with opportunities for independent living when possible and with security of income and of services on which, above all, they depend.

Mr. Mark Oaten: I attended the Select Committee meeting at which evidence on the introduction of the benefit integrity project was heard and, as it unfolded, I could hardly believe what I was hearing. The clear message was that none of the misery that has been caused by the project was necessary in the first place. Disabled people should never have been subjected to it. It is utterly frustrating for those of us who have constantly argued against the system to discover from the Select Committee report that BIP was an illegitimate creation with no political warrant.
In introducing the Select Committee report, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said that no consultation took place with disability groups about BIP. However, worse was to follow. It is bad enough not to consult such groups, but, from the evidence, it transpired that incoming Ministers did not get a look-in either. It is

outrageous that a controversial scheme that has had an impact on so many of our constituents should have been launched in that way in the middle of a general election campaign and without the incoming Government's approval. The Select Committee report rightly sets out recommendations to ensure that that scenario never occurs again.
Four questions need to be answered. First, I have always assumed that, in advance of a general election, shadow Ministers had some sort of contact with civil servants to discuss plans and the timing of legislation that remained on the books. The evidence to the Select Committee makes it quite clear that, immediately after the election, no new Government figures were informed on such matters. Perhaps the Minister will confirm in his winding-up speech that there had been no discussion on the timing and details of BIP with the shadow Cabinet before the election.
Secondly, when a Labour Minister finally became aware of BIP during the now infamous telephone call to Preston railway station, why did the Government not act? Why did they not halt the project immediately they became aware of its timing and undertake an investigation into the reasons for BIP and, in particular, carry out a detailed examination of the way in which it would be executed? That would have enabled them to make a clear judgment on whether it was a project that they were prepared to inherit and for which they would take responsibility.
Thirdly, did the Secretary of State for Social Security consider cancelling the project when the matter was ultimately drawn to her attention? As the project has not been cancelled, the fourth question is: why did the Government decide to proceed with BIP? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions. It is clear that the Department's civil servants made a serious error in introducing the project when they did. Is it not also true that the Government were at fault for failing to call off the project at the earliest available opportunity? Since the crucial period for that opportunity, towards the end of May, there have been many opportunities to abandon BIP.
The Government have had plenty of evidence to suggest that BIP is not working. We have heard stories of poorly trained staff carrying out bad assessments and of incorrect targeting leading to groups of people who should have been excluded from the project being placed under BIP. There has been a threat about Motability vehicles to those who chose to appeal against decisions and, of course, the long and arduous appeals process is full of inconsistencies. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the project should have been abandoned.
The Select Committee report is excellent, but the catalogue of incompetence in the process is likely to bring despair to disabled people. However, the positive recommendations in the report at least provide a constructive way forward on DLA. The acid test is whether the Government will now choose to follow up the recommendations of the report quickly. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that the Government endorse many of the Select Committee's ideas, but they need to go further than that. Having had a chance to read the report, I believe that disabled people deserve an apology from the Government for the fact that the whole mess was allowed to happen in the first place. Again, I hope that the Minister will make that clear today.


There is one key area in which I disagree with the Select Committee's recommendations. The hon. Member for Croydon, North said that the Committee was prepared to place BIP on probation for six months, but surely we have had enough black-and-white evidence by now. We have talked about probation periods and reviews, but none of that will work. The project should be scrapped and we should move on to a different system for reviewing DLA. How can we resurrect a system that was implemented without proper political scrutiny? How can something as discredited as BIP begin to regain the confidence of those being assessed? How can something that failed to tackle the problems in the first place be worth propping up for a further six months?
We should look to the future and not start from the perspective that benefit is paid to too many people, as both the previous Conservative Government and the Labour Government appear to believe. The critical question should be framed in terms of how those who are not claiming DLA to which they may be entitled can be brought into the system. All the evidence suggests that take-up is low among those who are in most severe need of the benefit. We can put in place parallel measures to help people to move away from benefits wherever possible, but the fact that a large number of disabled people need DLA should not be disputed.
We should introduce a new system of reviewing benefits and set up a disability home visit programme. That should be established with the aim of carrying out a proper assessment of people's needs, rather than of reducing Government benefit spending. Such a programme should be targeted at those who are not currently claiming and those who should be claiming at the higher level of the severity scale. It should involve careful and well-thought-out visits from staff who have been properly trained to assess uptake of benefits, to identify where equipment could help, to talk through disability rights issues and to help individuals with a whole package of appropriate benefits.
Disabled people want that sort of exciting development, which exemplifies the standards that we expect to govern the new Government's policy and to be upheld in the civil service. The Conservatives cannot afford to be sanctimonious—after all, B1P was their idea—but, equally, the Labour Government can take no comfort. What started out as a lack of information and an error by civil servants has now become a lack of constructive Government action to remedy or to replace the project. Today provides the Government with another opportunity to take decisive action and I hope that the Minister will not disappoint when he winds up the debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. To enable everyone who is desirous of catching my eye to do so, short speeches would be helpful.

Mrs. Joan Humble: I am not a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, so I read the report with great interest. It is an excellent and detailed report, which reflects many of my constituents' concerns. As other hon. Members have said, we all get complaints from people who have been made

desperately anxious that their DLA may be taken away or reduced. After Christmas, my advice surgeries were full of people who had received their complicated forms just before Christmas—what sort of present was that? They did not understand why their benefit was reviewed, especially those who had originally been told that their benefit was for life. Apparently, a benefit is not for life if BIP comes along and a decision is made to review that benefit. There was great concern, some of which was unnecessary.
I was pleased by the measures taken by the Government earlier this year to address some of the worst aspects of the benefit integrity project, but, as the report makes clear, there are still aspects that cause serious concern. Underpinning the whole report is a lack of understanding of why DLA is paid: many of those who come to my surgeries see DLA not as a benefit to help meet their care needs, but as compensation for their disability. They do not understand that, although their disability or illness has not changed, their care needs might have changed and the benefit might need to be reviewed. We need to clear up that basic confusion.
Part of the confusion surrounds the lack of medical evidence used when assessing DLA, which is currently based on self-assessment. The report, rightly, asks whether DLA should be based entirely on self-assessment, or on a medical model, or on a mixture of both. My constituents' main complaint is that, as adjudication officers are not medically trained and do not understand the nature of my constituents' disabilities, how dare they say that my constituents no longer need the higher-rate component or the middle-rate component?
The DLA headquarters are located in my constituency, so thought that I had better go along and talk to the staff who administer the system, instead of continuing to send them letters as I have done since being elected. I have visited Warbreck house three times; my third visit was fascinating, because I discussed in detail with adjudication officers how and why they arrived at their decisions. I assure hon. Members that adjudication officers are not monsters, but people who operate the system that we set up. We have a responsibility to them to make sure that the system is one that they can efficiently and effectively administer, which is what they want to be able to do. Those who work in delivering DLA care about the people to whom they speak on the phone and about whom they read; they get to know those individuals and want to support and help them. Our responsibility is to look carefully at the report, to ensure that the Government pay attention to the serious failings it identifies and to translate that into a more efficient management system for benefits for people with disabilities.
The issue of self-assessment and the role of medical evidence are important, because those hard-working adjudication officers who are my constituents have to make extremely difficult decisions. On the one hand, they read an individual's own description of his or her condition, but, on the other, that description might not illustrate the level of care needed to support the individual's life style. Adjudication officers base


decisions on the paper evidence before them, but that evidence is not always sufficient. Therefore, I welcome the report's recommendation that there needs to be
A better balance between corroborative evidence, objective functional criteria and the claimant's self-perception".
Like many disability organisations, I would not be entirely happy with a change to a fully medical model, but we need to redress the balance.
The report also recommends that we should set up a
cross-departmental working group … to examine … assessments and service provision for disabled people across health, community care, Independent Living Fund and local authority direct payments".
Many people with disability are bewildered by the wide array of Departments and services and by the number of doors on which they have to knock to get the support that they need to be active members of our community. Some local authorities that have introduced charging policies for social services take into account the whole of DLA; some take into account only part of DLA; some do not take it into account at all; and some local authorities do not charge for social services. Some local authorities have introduced direct payment systems and others have not. Disabled people are expected to make their way through this minefield, of which DLA is just one part. One of the important issues highlighted by the report is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) said, disabled people need a simple system that they understand, and a system that can be properly administered.
We need a disability benefit system that reflects the proper status of people with disabilities. I hope that the Government will consider in detail the report's many recommendations and will respond positively.

Mrs. Theresa May: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee on Social Security undertook its review and produced a thoughtful report on the disability living allowance. I am a former joint chairman of the all-party disablement group, and I think that the group can take some credit for having at least triggered the idea that it was important that DLA be examined. I think that it was the representations made by Lord Ashley that led the Committee to do so.
As the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said, the investigation was carried out against a background of considerable concern among people with disabilities and disability organisations about the threats that appeared to be hanging over disability benefits under this Government at the turn of the year and in the early months of this year, and against a background of growing concern about the way in which the benefit integrity project was operating.
We have heard some telling comments this morning, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). He spoke of his constituent who gave evidence to the Select Committee about the hardship caused by the way in which BIP has been operating. The project has caused real distress because people are concerned about the threat of cuts to disability benefits under this Government. Concerns remain. Although some were dealt with by the

Government in their welfare reform Green Paper, they failed to address certain aspects of the problem, and people are still worried about the threat that hangs over DLA.
I shall focus on certain details in the report. I am worried that BIP continues to operate regardless of the evidence of the very real hardship that it is causing. I was disappointed that the Select Committee chose to give six months' probation to BIP and did not call for its suspension pending a full review, something for which disability organisations have been calling for some months.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to reconsider. He has always set his face against a suspension of the project, but I hope that he will today say that he is prepared to suspend its operation pending a full review. The project has operated under this Government and they have had several opportunities to suspend it. They have considerable evidence of the damage, anxiety and distress that it is causing to people whose benefits have been cut or taken away quite erroneously, as in the example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East. I hope that the Minister will go further than the Select Committee report and say that the Government are prepared to suspend and review BIP.
The Select Committee considered how assessments were carried out for DLA. I will not say that the Select Committee appeared to dismiss self-assessment, because it agreed that such assessment should continue, but there is some concern about its references to the possibility of adapting an all-work test to some sort of all-living test. There is great anxiety about the way in which the all-work test operates, and questions remain about it in the case of incapacity benefit. Scope has already said that it is worried that such a test could be adapted as an assessment for DLA. I would caution against moving too quickly down that path. Self-assessment is important because it is the people with disabilities who know best what their needs are. It is important that self-assessment continues to be a key aspect of any assessment for DLA.
Taxation is another source of anxiety hanging over DLA. In her evidence to the Select Committee, Baroness Hollis said:
Means testing has been ruled out … Taxation has not been ruled out".
That worries many people with disabilities because of what DLA was intended to be. It was intended to cover the costs that people incurred because of their disabilities. It is about empowering people with disabilities. The Government should not lose sight of the concept of empowerment when considering any changes to DLA.
I shall read out two quotations which clearly show what DLA is really about. One comes from evidence to the Select Committee given by Richard Wood on behalf of the British Council of Disabled People. He said:
It is paid to give disabled people dignity, to allow us to live independently in the community, to allow us to be independent of other people, to make our own choices about how we choose to buy our care in, whom we would wish to pay to do that. which goods and services we need to be able to purchase to support that independence.
The second is from Scope, which said:
The current system is consistent with the Government's commitment, as expressed in the Welfare Reform Green Paper, that disabled people should be enabled to live fulfilling lives,


with dignity. This commitment can only he achieved if disabled people own and control how their needs are met, rather than having them judged by other people who cannot have the same insight into the effects of their impairment on their daily life.
DLA is about empowering the individual. It is a recognition of the fact that it is people with disabilities who best know their own needs and how they should be met. Those two key principles underpin DLA. I should have liked a little more recognition of that in the Select Committee report and its recommendations. However, it is an important report which raises several key issues about the operation of DLA and BIP. I look forward to what I hope will he a constructive and positive response from the Minister. This is the second Adjournment debate to refer to the problems of BIP, and I hope that the Minister's reaction will he more positive this time.

Mr. Paul Goggins: I am a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, and I found the inquiry extremely important and timely in that it provided a focus for the widespread concern that is felt about the benefit integrity project.
Clearly, the inquiry was too short to be able to make detailed recommendations about the disability living allowance as a whole, but the Committee heard enough evidence to suggest that the Government should undertake an urgent review of all its aspects. That review should take account of several points made in the Committee's report and in this morning's debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) spoke about the need for simplification of the benefits for disabled people. Consideration should be given to the role of self-assessment, which is desirable in itself, but no doubt leads to the benefit becoming unstable. There is also considerable evidence, which Ministers should consider, that many severely disabled people are not getting the level of help that they require.
I shall refer to three aspects of BIP which still concern me greatly. The first is the relationship between costs and savings. It was estimated that in years one and two of BIP, the costs would be £23 million and the savings, now revised down, would be £45 million. Therefore, for every LI spent, £2 would be saved. However, the estimated figures for the first year are that £11.5 million will be spent, and that a mere million will be saved. So, for every £2 spent, less than £1 would be saved. Such a financial result may strike hon. Members as hardly worth the effort of attaining it. When the result is set against the fear and upset that the benefit integrity project has undoubtedly caused, it becomes extremely difficult to justify. I think that all Committee members were struck by the evidence given by disabled people who had been disallowed their benefits.
Secondly, I am concerned about the issue of incorrectness and allegations of fraud in claims for disability living allowance. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned the Department of Social Security benefit review—on which the benefit integrity project was based—which alleged that there was 27 per cent. incorrectness, nearly half of which was attributable to fraud. It alleged that, every year, there was almost half a billion pounds of fraud in disability living allowance claims.
The implication or undercurrent of the DSS benefit review is that many disabled people are fraudsters, which I reject. Moreover, the evidence being produced by the

benefit integrity project shows that such a conclusion is wrong, and that, although there is about 21 per cent. incorrectness, there is almost no fraud in DLA—which is a salutary reminder to Ministers and all other hon. Members that we have to be extremely cautious when making claims about levels of benefit fraud.
I am concerned, thirdly, about the issue of reviews and appeals. If people dispute decisions made under the benefit integrity project, they can ask for a review. Subsequently, if necessary, they can seek an appeal. The Committee's report contains the review figures for January 1998, which show that one quarter of all reviews resulted in an increased award. However, the latest figures, for April 1998—which are in the Library—show that a third of all reviewed cases received a benefit increase. Moreover, two thirds of the 61 appeals that were completed in April resulted in the restoration of or an increase in benefit. The results are a very worrying indication that the quality of the original BIP decision was extremely poor. The report makes it clear that the Committee expects there to be major improvements in the project.
Many hon. Members have asked in this debate whether BIP should have been suspended. Like my Committee colleagues, I gave serious consideration to the question, but two factors prevented me from going along with a suspension. First, the Secretary of State took action in tightening the BIP guidelines. The most severely disabled people were exempted from the project, and objective corroboration is now necessary before benefits are withdrawn. Secondly, there is no denying that Ministers have made sterling efforts in gaining the confidence of disabled people and their organisations, and in making progress on these issues.
I therefore concluded that BIP should have six months' probation, and I certainly hope, and expect, that further progress will be made in the project. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that, in the long run, the Government must consider a major overhaul of disability living allowance.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I shall speak only briefly, as I know that the Minister and the shadow Minister wish to speak. I should like to pay tribute to my colleague on the Select Committee on Social Security, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), for his excellent precis of our recommendations. I should like equally to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), whose constituent I well remember appearing before the Select Committee. It was quite inconceivable that her benefit should have been removed in such a fashion. I felt that she was very dignified, but certainly in need of state support, of which she was being deprived. I hope that those matters will be resolved very shortly.
I thought that the Select Committee's report was useful, as it highlighted the reasons for the need for reform of disability living allowance, albeit it did not give many suggestions on what that reform should include. I think that the resolution of two matters—one of which has been mentioned in this debate—would be helpful in reforming DLA. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who kept mentioning in Committee the first of the matters—which is that DLA forms are not helpful to people with blindness or other sensory disabilities. It would be very helpful if such people were considered when the forms are produced.
The second matter, which hon. Members have mentioned in this debate, is medical assessment and the current self-assessment system. I think that, at the very least, we shall have to require the use of much more medical corroboration in deciding the cases of people seeking disability living allowance. If we were to do so, provision of DLA would gain much more public support.
The Select Committee has clearly identified the fact that the system operates very much in an ad hoc manner in determining who receives DLA and at what rate they receive it, which cannot encourage public support for the benefit, or give confidence to those who need the benefit that they will receive the amount to which they are entitled. The hon. Member for Croydon, North explained how such a situation has arisen, and also said that introduction of DLA was a great achievement of the previous Government.
The DLA programme has grown over time and been subject to changes by the courts. It is now very unclear who should be eligible to receive the benefit and how much they should receive. I very much hope that the Government properly review the benefit and make changes that will reassure everyone that it operates in a manner that hon. Members can justify, and perhaps even explain, to our constituents.
I should like to mention one other matter dealt with in our report, and mentioned in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), on which I should be grateful for the Minister's comments—the spectre of taxation of disability allowance. Conservative Members would very much object to choosing such an option which, although it was mentioned in the context of a review, is in the report.
The Select Committee was told by many disability organisations that they would consider such taxation to be extremely unfair, and that the purpose of disability living allowance is not to redistribute income, but to enable people to live full lives, despite their disabilities, and to pay for the things that they require to tackle their disabilities, so that they can live their lives as best they can. Conservative Members would vehemently oppose any proposal by the Government to tax DLA.
I should be very grateful if the Minister would put the taxation issue to rest once and for all, as it—like the benefit integrity project, and other issues raised by the Government on the future of DLA—is mentioned very frequently in my postbag. I should be very grateful if, in future, I could write that the Minister has firmly ruled out taxation of disability living allowance, either now or in the future.

Mr. Chris Pond: I shall speak very briefly, because I know that we have to leave time for Front Benchers to speak. I know also that my fellow Labour members of the Select Committee would like to add to the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) to Lord Ashley, who has worked in both Houses on disability issues and on stimulating our inquiry.
Our inquiry has shown that there are considerable difficulties with the current operation of disability living allowance, and particularly with how the benefit integrity

project sought to address some of those difficulties. It is very clear that there were difficulties in some of the DLA assessments, many of which appeared to be arbitrary. Lack of take-up of the benefit also demonstrates that it is not working well. I think that all hon. Members involved in the debate have been clear about the fact that the BIP project—as initially conceived, or misconceived—made matters considerably worse.
At its conception, I described BIP as something of a Whitehall farce—which would have been comic had the project not caused such severe anxiety and hardship to so many people. I know, after talking to people with disabilities in my constituency, that the project itself was such a cause of anxiety that it could well have made their condition worse. That is why the Select Committee seriously considered calling for the suspension of BIP. However, we decided to call for BIP to be put on probation rather than suspended to see how the changes implemented by the Government were working.
A review of DLA, which is much to be welcomed, should focus on claims made in the early years of the introduction of the benefit, when there was real chaos in the way in which it was being administered and officials were clearly uncertain as to its implementation. The review should also look at the issue of life claims, which is something of a misnomer because many claims issued supposedly on a lifetime basis have to be reviewed as a result of changing circumstances.
I welcome an overall review of DLA. We need to consider seriously whether or not BIP should be suspended, and I know that the Minister will be examining that, subject to the probation that we have suggested. It is also important that we make a clear distinction between what has happened under BIP and DLA and the Government's overall approach to welfare reform, which is not about cuts in benefit to severely disabled people, but about seeking to ensure that people who have to depend on benefit have a level of income that provides them with dignity and independence, while encouraging as many as possible to work.

Mr. Simon Burns: First, I congratulate the Select Committee on its report on DLA and BIP as both issues have been of great concern and of a sensitive nature to the country for the past year or so. The problem arose because the Government caused people with disabilities a great deal of anxiety and fear over the future of DLA. The sole reason for that was their shoddy and piecemeal approach to reforming social security. The lack of a clear policy direction is far more damaging than having no policy at all. The rumours, the leaks, the counter-rumours and the counter-leaks with which we have all become so familiar might be the ideal way for the Government to carry out their market research and gauge public opinion, but they have to realise that such actions affect real people, and in this case they have had a serious effect.
As Margaret Pedlar of the mental health charity MIND said:
I cannot stress too strongly the anxiety that was caused earlier in the year by rumours over means-testing or taxation of Disability Living Allowance or its replacement by services. Nor should the importance of this benefit to people's lives be underestimated.


The Government have singularly failed to recognise the sensitivity of the subject and even now, after more than a year, there remains uncertainty as to whether or not DLA should be taxed.
The problem began last November when there was a press report that the Government were considering the taxation of DLA. The leak was neither confirmed nor denied by the Government, leaving thousands of people with disabilities unsure as to the future of their benefits. Yet rather than making their position absolutely clear, which would have prevented a great deal of the heartache, confusion and sheer panic, the Government greatly added to the uncertainty by letting it be known that they were considering cuts not only to DLA, but to the whole range of disability benefits. It was made quite clear in the report by Channel 4 in mid-December that the Government were planning wide-ranging cuts in disability benefits. Again, the Government did nothing to dispel the fears of people with disabilities for the future of their benefits. Even when the Opposition pressed them on many occasions on whether DLA would be means-tested or taxed, Ministers did nothing to clarify the position.
People with disabilities had to wait until late March this year, with the publication of the long-awaited Green Paper on welfare reform, finally to receive the assurance from the Government that DLA would not be means-tested. The question must, therefore, be asked about why the Government waited four months from the initial rumours about means-testing before ruling it out. If it was never their intention to means-test DLA, they could have ruled it out at the time and saved many people much anxiety, but the uncertainty that pervades Government policy in these matters continues.
The Government still have not made up their mind about whether DLA ought to be taxed. Only a few weeks ago, we heard from the Minister for Welfare Reform on the Dimbleby programme that the taxation of DLA was one of the options being considered. He said:
I can't give you the answers yet—because we are having a general consultation about it.
It seems that the uncertainty will continue until the Government finally make up their mind, but it is still causing concern to many people.
The Select Committee report makes the strong recommendation that taxation of DLA should be considered only in the context of a full review of the purposes and the level of the benefit. It is worth raising here the important argument that disability benefits, of which DLA is one of the most important, serve the purpose of levelling the playing field to some extent. It is essential that any proposals to tax DLA do not erode that fundamental principle which underlies disability benefit. However, it seems that so far, the Government have done all they can to ensure that the concern and worry continue, and that is nothing compared with the damage caused by their operation of the benefit integrity project, which has quite rightly featured so significantly in our debate today and in the Select Committee report.
The detailed Select Committee report offers a full and dramatic account of how the lack of communication between incoming Ministers and the Department of Social Security resulted in the shambles that has marked the project so far. We have the extraordinary circumstance, unearthed by the Select Committee, of the Minister concerned only discovering the existence of the project

on 29 May during a telephone conversation from Preston railway station. It seems extraordinary that, for 23 days after taking office, Ministers were completely oblivious to a fundamental policy that was being implemented by their Department, which already had a significant impact on the lives of so many people.

Mr. Steve Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: No. I am very short of time.
I should like the Minister to explain something to the House, as I cannot see it anywhere in the report and I am puzzled. Certainly under the previous Government, whenever there was a Government reshuffle—and I suspect that it was also the case on 4 May 1979 when new Ministers were first appointed—Ministers were issued by their civil servants with significant briefing material on every policy for which they had direct responsibility and on the overall policies being pursued by the Department. Were Ministers at the Department of Social Security—on or shortly after 6 May—issued with detailed briefings of their ministerial responsibilities and the policies that the civil service anticipated that the incoming new Government would pursue? If they were, did the benefit integrity project in any shape or form feature in that briefing? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, how did it escape the notice of Ministers—particularly the Minister directly concerned with the policy—until 29 May? If the answer to the question is that there was no reference to the project in any briefing to new Ministers, what action have Ministers taken to reprimand civil servants who made such a significant failing, and what confidence do they have that other policies being hatched in the Department will not be enacted in a similar way, oblivious of ministerial knowledge or control? I would appreciate an answer from the Minister.
Like several hon. Members who spoke in the debate, I am perplexed and disappointed that the report has simply put BIP on probation until the end of July. In an earlier debate two or three months ago, we called on the Government to suspend the project—notwithstanding the actions taken by the Secretary of State in February to seek to improve its immediate impact—so that it could be overhauled and reviewed thoroughly without causing harm to those individuals most directly affected. We urged the Government to get it right once and for all, rather than continuing to try to sort it out piecemeal. The Select Committee has put BIP on probation until the end of July. As we shall presumably go into recess in July, when will the Select Committee study and reconsider what has occurred during that probationary period? Will nothing be done for another three or four months? If so, we shall face an on-going problem.
Time is short and I do not wish to eat into the Minister's time. We are concerned about the way in which DLA has been handled, and the report has picked up on those concerns. We are also gravely concerned about BIP and its introduction, which the report has picked up on starkly. I hope that the Minister will respond to the genuine concerns expressed by all hon. Members who have raised the issue, particularly the question of the briefing of new Ministers when Labour came to power in early May last year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): I thank the Social Security Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), who introduced the debate in the absence of the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). We hope that he will be better soon.
The Committee's fourth report on disability living allowance is both interesting and useful. It is a substantial report which makes many detailed, and in some cases far-reaching, recommendations—all of which are being studied carefully. Many of the issues are being addressed, and I understand why the House has sought an early opportunity to discuss the report. However, it is important that the Government consider all the issues carefully, so I shall not respond fully to the report today. We shall make a formal written response within the usual time scales that apply to replies to Select Committee reports. We intend to respond by the end of July, as requested by the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North,
The Select Committee report will undoubtedly feed into the debate about disability living allowance. My hon. Friend outlined—as did several other hon. Members—the Select Committee's call for a review of disability living allowance. We set the ground rules for this debate in the welfare reform Green Paper. In that paper, we set out our firm commitment to the principle of providing special allowances to help with the extra costs of disability and maintaining DLA as a non-means-tested and national benefit for those who meet the entitlement conditions. I make it clear that taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we have no current plans to tax DLA and there was no reference to that in the Green Paper.

Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Denham: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have only a limited time in which to respond to many hon. Members.
It is worth remembering the central role that DLA plays in the lives of disabled people. It has many positive aspects. It is paid to disabled people whether they are in or out of work. This year, we expect that about £5.5 billion of disability living allowance will go to help about 2 million disabled people. The Select Committee confirmed the importance of that help and those values. In considering DLA, we want to ensure that the many advantages of DLA as it stands at present are not lost in an effort to put right some of the faults.
However, as the Select Committee recognises, there is a question about whether some of those who receive DLA are entitled to it and whether others who are entitled to it are not getting the help that they need. In order to receive DLA, disabled people make a statement of their care and mobility needs, which is usually backed up by evidence from a general practitioner. Several hon. Members referred to medical evidence. In more than 40 per cent. of cases, there is either an independent medical examination or evidence from a GP.
The recent joint investigation of DLA by the DLA advisory board and the Department of Social Security suggested that there was insufficient evidence to support

the benefit claim in two thirds of cases. It also found that one third of the awards made for life—which constitutes two thirds of all awards—were made to people whose conditions might have been expected to improve. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) referred to life awards. That is the current term used in the legislation, but we accept that a life award does not mean an award for life. If people's conditions or needs change, their entitlement can be affected.
Many speakers, including my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North, for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, expressed concern about the lack of clarity and robustness and the difficulty involved in understanding the criteria for current entitlement. That is why we gave an undertaking in the Green Paper to review the gateway to DLA and to set up a forum of representatives of groups of and for disabled people to help take it forward. We have now established the forum under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, and it is having its first meeting today. The forum's terms of reference are:
To consider possible options for changes in the gateways to benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and carers, and how to ensure that help is directed to those who need it.
A wide range of organisations are represented on the forum, and we take consultation seriously. I am sure that the Select Committee's report will feed usefully into the forum's discussions in the coming weeks.
I turn now to the benefit integrity project. There have clearly been problems with BIP, many of which the Select Committee has highlighted. However, the Select Committee also accepted the need for a mechanism to ensure that current DLA recipients receive their correct entitlement. After careful consideration, the Select Committee decided not to endorse the sorts of calls that we have heard today from some hon. Members to suspend the project. For our part, we believe that BIP is necessary, but we want to ensure that the project is conducted as sensitively as possible and that the right decisions are taken.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) asked why the decision was taken to proceed with the project when Ministers became aware of it. The Department of Social Security, backed by the National Audit Office, presented to Ministers evidence of fraud amounting to nearly £500 million and we acted immediately to improve the training available for staff. Due to the nature of the benefit, it has become clear that that estimate of fraud cannot be sustained, although the project has maintained that estimate of incorrectness.
I am not convinced—I do not think that the Select Committee was either—that it would have been right to be aware of a substantial level of incorrectness in a benefit and simply to choose to do nothing about it. It is clear that we must conduct the project sensitively and make every effort to ensure that we take the correct decisions. The fact that the benefit integrity project is necessary illustrates some of the problems surrounding DLA.
BIP is backed by standard assessment and adjudication rules—they have not been changed—and the responsibility for decision making rests with the same people who have always exercised that responsibility. The usual full rights of review and appeal apply to cases reviewed under the benefit integrity project, in the same way as to any other disability living allowance claim or review. Those rules ensure that decisions relating to benefit entitlement are objective and based on evidence.


We are already working on some of the issues raised by the Select Committee. We have kept the project under review since inheriting it, and we have made changes whenever they were considered necessary. One of the most welcome changes was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 9 February. From that date, no benefit has been reduced or taken away solely on the basis of evidence from the claimant—we shall always ensure that there is additional evidence. Disability organisations, the Select Committee and other hon. Members have called for that change to be extended to cases decided before 9 February. We are keen to explore that proposal.
I have already informed the House that we have been trying for some time to overcome the various legal and operational difficulties that such a change would present. The number of cases affected is not the major problem: the number of cases decided before 9 February without any additional evidence and where the claimant had not already asked for a review or appeal is estimated to be fewer than 2,000. However, the process must be handled very carefully.
For instance, re-examining very many cases will not necessarily lead to benefits being increased or restored. Indeed, there is always the possibility that benefit could be reduced further. Claimants need to be fully informed about the possible outcomes of any further review, but in a way that would not dissuade them from exercising the right to have their case re-examined.
Having described some of the issues that we have had to consider, I am pleased to be able to confirm that we shall be looking again at those pre-9 February cases which were decided without additional evidence and resulted in a reduction or removal of DLA, where the claimant did not seek a review of the decision. Exact details are still being worked out, but we shall move forward as quickly as possible, in keeping with a careful and sensitive approach. I am sure that the House will welcome the announcement.
We have made a series of further changes to the benefit integrity project. We have introduced regular meetings with representatives from organisations of and for disabled people. We have agreed that certain groups of DLA recipients will not be contacted directly as part of the project. There will be further consideration of other excluded groups at a meeting towards the end of the month, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) suggested—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

[Relevant documents: First Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1997–98, on Peace Support Operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (HC 403), and the Government's response thereto (HC 535).]

11 am

Mr. Bruce George: It can perhaps be said that the Select Committee system goes back 500 years. Those 500 years of experience have been distilled into the miserable powers with which we are conferred—and we do not even exercise those powers. The Defence Committee, which I am privileged to chair, has had a busy 12 months. There have been 28 formal meetings, five foreign visits—to the United States, Germany, Bosnia, Bonn, for a small group of us, and NATO–15 domestic visits, including to Northern Ireland, and 23 informal briefings. I have pushed the Committee very hard. We have had a total of 72 meetings so far and there will be two more tomorrow. We have been dealing with a labyrinthine bureaucracy that makes the Ottomans seem the personification of open government—although my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is a great exception to that scientific rule.
I am very pleased that we are debating the first of our reports on peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. The device of allowing Select Committees to be reported is a marginal addition to their limited powers. Our report was timely when it was written. It was written very soon after our return from Bosnia—perhaps hastily would be the wrong word to use—because we felt that key decisions were being made at the turn of the year on the continuation of the stabilisation force and that it was necessary very swiftly to produce a report based on our experience and observations. Today's debate is timely in that key decisions are being made in the Security Council on the continuation of SFOR. The timeliness is important; I would like to think that it was deliberate, but knowing this place, I am not entirely convinced.
The report concerns the Defence Committee's fifth visit to Bosnia—although it was the first for the present Committee members. We therefore bring quite considerable knowledge of the situation in Bosnia to the report and have a right to offer advice on what should happen, bearing in mind the appalling lessons of the past and the many mistakes that were made by Governments throughout the world, especially those in the European Union and NATO.
I very much welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. We are awaiting debates on two further reports; one—on NATO enlargement—has already been written. Government Members who are well programmed might say that the Government have a busy timetable and therefore have not been able to find time to ratify—if what we do can be dignified by the term, which, of course, it cannot—the reports. Those who are rather more adventurous might say that the lack of debate is unfortunate. I would say that it is a disgrace that the Government have not found sufficient time to debate a key issue to the future of eastern and central Europe, NATO and world security. I hope that time will be found before the recess.
The Committee is awaiting the production of our sixth report—we are not quite sure when it will occur—which is on the strategic defence review. The Committee has


been on standby for January, February, March, April, May and June. Are rumours true that we shall be on standby in July, August and even September before we have the opportunity to produce our report?

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Chairman of the Select Committee confirm the rumour that he intends that the Committee should sit through the month of August in order to question Ministers about the contents of the strategic defence review?

Mr. George: I have said publicly on several occasions that, if we have to suffer, then Ministers should too. It is fanciful for Ministers—and, why not, Treasury Ministers, too—to assume that they can hide somewhere in northern Italy, drinking expensive wine while we are advancing the cause of the Executive as a result of their oversight. Perhaps some package holiday back to the United Kingdom can be arranged for them.
If our Prime Minister wishes to pursue an ethical foreign policy—I can think of nothing more ethical than preventing genocide—and if he wishes to sustain the British ability to defend ourselves and to meet our treaty and alliance obligations, it is very important that our armed forces are of the right size and the present high quality, well led, well trained, well motivated, well equipped, have high morale, receive good political leadership and are not grossly overstretched. Those qualities must be maintained. Skills and morale do not descend from the sky; they have to be nurtured.
As the Secretary of State–1 am pleased that he is present—Ministers and members of the Defence Committee know, we cannot accept that what we have at the moment will remain in perpetuity. The skills in our armed forces could disappear; troops could leave due to gross overstretch. Our capable forces are a precious asset that must not be squandered. I am wasting my time by talking to Defence Ministers because I share their views, but I hope that those on the other side of the road realise that, although economic policy is important, the defence of our national interest is equally, if not more, important.
Our troops are so professional. Man for man, woman for woman, pound for pound—or, if ever we were unfortunate enough to get into a common defence policy, kilo for kilo—our forces are probably the best in the world. They are doing a superb job in Bosnia. One wonders what would happen if their presence there were greatly diminished. To illustrate their sheer professionalism, I shall cite one small example. Some of us visited the King's Royal Hussars, which were then based around Mrkonjicgrad. I cannot adequately express my admiration for that half regiment; they were brilliant. The range of tasks and the versatility that they displayed were quite staggering. Given their experience in Northern Ireland, they were as good at being infantrymen and paramilitary policemen as they were at driving tanks.
I am delighted to say that, on our recent visit to Germany, we found the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards ecstatic about their new Challenger 2s—the Rolls-Royce of world tanks. I just hope that Vickers does not do the same for Challenger 2 as it did for Rolls-Royce. The tank is superb. A disastrous decision has been made. [Interruption.] I shall not be partisan; my friends on the Opposition Benches know what I just managed to prevent myself from saying.
The King's Royal Hussars operate and drive around in Scimitars and Warriors. They even travel on horseback. They were immensely popular locally. Their military capability was superb, and they had an amazing civil assistance programme, which earned them enormous local praise. They improved water supply, established street lighting and rebuilt roads and schools—all that with half a regiment. We can be so proud of what our young men and women are doing there, but it is important that in the strategic defence review we are careful to ensure that those assets are not dissipated.
Let us make no mistake; if any of the options that were on the table for the future of SFOR had been implemented, the consequences would have been catastrophic. One option, which was obviously not serious, was total withdrawal with no follow-on force. Some people have argued for that, and the one piece of publicity that we had following publication of our report came from Simon Jenkins, a former adviser to the Committee concerning our Falklands report. Clearly, he thinks that it is not our responsibility to stay in Bosnia, and that we should get the hell out of there.
I believe that if that line were pursued, the consequences would be disastrous. A purely deterrent force, small and based outside Bosnia, would have been nonsense; a deterrent force of 20,000 would have been inadequate. I hope that it will be announced that there will remain a force of about the present size, because I am pretty certain that if those forces were significantly diminished, the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims would get back to basics—killing each other, dusting down their kalashnikovs and driving their tanks out of the compounds in which they are now retained. Revenge would be sought, with killings and masses of refugees—and of course, the forest fire would spread.
Will the Minister of State tell us what he intends to announce about the future level of British forces? I would like that confirmed. Can he say anything about the NATO contribution in general, what the balance between NATO and non-NATO elements will be, and what the United States commitment is? It would be helpful for that to be restated.
As we said in our report:
We believe that the task of SFOR is not yet completed, and we support the continuing presence of a multinational force
in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Within that, of course, Britain must continue to play its significant role.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Defence Committee for giving way to me. While he is discussing the configuration of SFOR, does he agree that the only reason why we can provide such excellent troops in their present shape is that they have retained a high-intensity war-fighting capability, which can then be flexed into other shapes, whereas if we had designed our troops around a peacekeeping or gendarmerie function, they would be nothing like as good at peacekeeping?

Mr. George: That is true. The example that I gave of the King's Royal Hussars consists of guys who have been in Northern Ireland and know about low-intensity operations, but who also exercise for a major war involving their tanks, and are capable of acting as


paramilitary policemen. The training and experience within those individuals' competence coves such a range as to make them startlingly unique.
I believe that the continuation of SFOR will buy time—more time to see how the other part of the equation works—the restoration of civil society in Bosnia, and democratisation, with social and economic regeneration. That certainly needs time. I believe, as President Clinton said, that we need not a deadline, but a series of milestones. When those milestones are reached, there can be a diminution in the military presence.
I shall now make a few points about other matters, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously Kosovo is in our minds. Milosevic has been described as both an arsonist and a fire fighter—the man who begins the crisis and then, it is to be hoped, comes round to put out the fire that he has started. The Balkans will remain an area of our continent beset with crises, and we must explain to our electorates why British forces are there. Their presence stems not simply from high ethical motives, but from our self-interest.
After the SDR is eventually published, I hope that our forces will not be significantly different from those that we have today. Yes, they must be geared up for the 21st century, but I hope that defence expenditure will remain at about 2.6 per cent. The last report of the previous Defence Committee, then chaired by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), whom I can call my hon. Friend, said that any further cuts in defence expenditure would endanger the defence of the realm.

Mr. Michael Colvin: May I respond to that reference to myself, and add, for the benefit of the Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see in his place, the information that the final paragraph of that last report on the previous defence White Paper was originally very tough and said that the cuts had gone so far but must go no further—I drafted that myself—but that another five lines that went even further were then added by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is now Chairman of the Defence Committee. I warn the Secretary of State that a couple of shots have been fired across his bows, and I hope that he reads the conclusion of the report carefully.

Mr. George: I thank my hon. Friend for those helpful remarks.
I have one further point unrelated to Bosnia, although it could be connected. From the press I understand that two of the recent rioters in Marseilles were serving British military personnel, one from the Royal Air Force and one from the Army. I hope that my remarks somehow waft their way over to their commanding officers to consider when they get out of the slammer. Unfortunately, they are not on Devil's island. I can never forgive the French for abandoning that magnificent penal colony, where those guys ought to be serving a sentence of three years, not three months. I hope that those men's commanding officers will pay attention to the press reports.

Mr. John McWilliam: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. George: Yes, but for the last time.

Mr. McWilliam: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that those men are probably in more trouble where they are now than they would be on Devil's island, where there is now a rather nice hotel.

Mr. George: Is that so? My travelling has obviously not been as extensive as that of my hon. Friend. I presume that those men's time in prison will not be such a wonderful experience.
In conclusion, the House can pay tribute to our armed forces, especially those serving in dangerous places in the world. Their presence there is important and appreciated. If the Prime Minister wishes to deploy British forces in trouble spots throughout the world, there must be a critical mass of our armed forces, and we are now at the point where that barely exists.
We have all read the press stories about the Treasury demanding our aircraft carrier programme, Eurofighter, or our Challenger 2 tanks. We have been waiting long enough for a decent tank, and it would be criminal to abandon the Challenger 2 after 70 or 80 years of waiting. If those press stories are remotely true, I think that everybody here, the full Defence Committee, and a large majority in the House of Commons will join the Secretary of State in telling the Treasury, "Hands off."

Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), has pointed out, the report is now rather more than six months old, and proceedings this morning have been notable for two reasons. First, through the passage of time the report has become timely because SFOR' s mandate expires on 21 June, so by accident, what we say today may be of rather more relevance than it might have been a few months ago.
The other notable feature is that this is, I believe, the first time in the 11 years that I have been a Member of the House that I have heard an intervention by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in a Defence debate without the words "Territorial Army" passing his lips. I suppose that that may be because, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he intends to tackle that topic with his usual enthusiasm later.
The hon. Gentleman would, of course, be right to raise that subject in the context of Bosnia. I guess that all hon. Members, when they have visited units in the Army, have almost always met someone in the Territorial Army who has either been to Bosnia or is about to go there.
I visited the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry territorials in my constituency recently, and I met one soldier who had given up his job in civilian life to accept a six-month tour of duty in Bosnia. That is typical of the enthusiasm of many in the Territorial Army for the opportunity provided by Bosnia, and it also reflects the fact that our effectiveness there has, on many occasions, rested on the fact that we have been able to call up from the Territorial Army people of competence and ability who were easily able to fit into the regular units to which they were assigned.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the gentleman in question, who has given up his civilian career to go to Bosnia, will have a regiment to come back to?

Mr. Campbell: Rather interestingly, that was the question he asked me, and I was not able to give an unequivocal answer. I promised to raise the matter with the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces. I have done so informally, and I take the


opportunity to do so more formally. They will have deduced from the response from hon. Members on both sides of the House that a part of the strategic defence review which will receive as much scrutiny in the House of Commons as any will be that part which deals with the future of the Territorial Army.
I do not expect Ministers to tell us this morning what they will do with the TA—we can read about it in The Times every other week. Talk about open government—parts of the strategic defence review seem to be conducted in the pages of the broadsheet newspapers. We hope to have soon a White Paper which will allow us to focus on decisions, rather than responding to what often looks like well-placed speculation.
I want to concentrate briefly on what has been achieved by the NATO military presence in Bosnia under the guise of SFOR. The first and obvious thing has been stability. As a result of that stability, obstructionist police chiefs have been successfully removed, war criminals have been arrested—UK forces have participated in that—and mendacious propaganda outlets, such as television stations, have been shut down. Local armed forces have been brought firmly under control and—something that would have been inconceivable a year ago—two major elections have been held in Bosnia against a peaceful background.
I mention those matters because they were all key undertakings of the Dayton agreement. Such success as has been achieved must not be thrown away, and the achievements must be built upon. If we do not continue to do that, most observers recognise that there is still potential in the region for a resumption of the damaging and brutal fighting which precipitated the intervention of NATO some three years ago. Early withdrawal of NATO would serve only to create circumstances in which that brutality could re-emerge.
The Committee's report draws attention to the need for political reconciliation and economic reconstruction. The peace created by SFOR provides us with the opportunity to push ahead towards that reconstruction. The decision to continue the mandate is, I understand, to be predicated on the view that there is no fixed exit date, but there is to be an exit state; that is to say, at a point when civil society has been properly restored in the area, NATO forces will withdraw.
We must ensure, therefore, that our presence is designed to bring about that exit state at the earliest possible date. There is a risk—Cyprus is a clear example—of temporary postings or obligations becoming part of the status quo. To a limited extent, I accept one of the propositions contained in the article by Mr. Simon Jenkins, to which the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South, referred; there is always a risk of deployments of this kind becoming part of the status quo. We must ensure, therefore, that during the period of deployment and the renewed mandate, we press ahead with those parts of the Dayton agreement which still require to be implemented.
The report highlights a number of key factors which need to be addressed urgently if civil society in Bosnia is to progress. For example, there is no proper definition of citizenship or passports. Discriminatory property laws block the return of displaced persons, and the concept of

refugee return made up a key part of the Dayton agreement. It is well known that the police do not deal even-handedly with politically motivated crimes. There are numerous cases of wrongful arrest and abuse of persons in custody. The issue of civil policing must be dealt with quickly.
The restoration of a recognised domestic civil police will come about only by close co-operation with the international police task force. That restoration of civil policing in which all sectors of the community can have confidence will, in my judgment, make the greatest possible contribution to the restoration of long-term stability.
One senior British Army officer pointed out in a recent article:
The restructuring of the police to the standards of western democracies is an essential step if SFOR is one day to withdraw successfully.
I understand that the UK contributes 60 officers to the IPTF. I wonder if that is an area in which we could do a little more. We have a long-established tradition of civil policing in this country, and surely it would be right to try to extend our influence in these matters in Bosnia.
The international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia deals with those indicted for war crimes. Everyone accepts that that is a crucial process if the scars that the events in Bosnia have left behind are ever to be healed. It is generally accepted that the tribunal is short of funds and is unduly bureaucratic. One of the key recommendations of the report is that
international bodies urgently re-examine the resourcing of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
The report ends with a recommendation that the
mandate for the successor force to SFOR should be based on a three year plan and be fully integrated with a comprehensive strategy for civilian implementation.
As I said, the proposals now envisage an exit state rather an exit date. That is a development in thinking since December 1997 and, although I was a subscriber to the report, thinking has developed—particularly across the Atlantic in the United States—that an exit state approach is the one that we should develop rather than the fixing of an exit date. The advantage of that is that more long-term strategies will be able to be pursued in areas such as mine clearance, the arrest of war criminals, the fight against corruption and the return of refugees.
The truth is that the implementation force and SFOR succeeded far beyond the expectations of those of us who supported their deployment. If one had said on the eve of the deployment of IFOR that it would have been able to restore stability as it did as quickly and as effectively, people would have expressed a certain degree of scepticism. SFOR has managed to take that process on and has maintained stability. The task for the follow-on force is to ensure that the stability allows the growth of the essential elements of a civilian society. That is why it is timely that we should discuss this report, albeit that the debate—as it were—is six months out of date. It reminds us once again that there are unfinished tasks in Bosnia.

Mr. Keith Hill: I very much welcome this debate. It is almost a year to the day since the House last debated the situation in Bosnia on an Adjournment motion


in my name. Other hon. Members took part in the debate then. Since Bosnia represents the most significant act of deployment of British troops overseas and since the situation in the Balkans continues to constitute the greatest threat to stability in Europe, it seems appropriate that the House should return to this subject—at least at a 12-month remove.
The occasion for this debate is the excellent report of the Defence Committee on peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I congratulate the Committee on its detailed and wide-ranging report. In particular, I congratulate the Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who, in his speech this morning, demonstrated his outstanding expertise on defence issues—the product of many years' immersion in the matter. He is absolutely right to point out the special contribution of British forces to peace support in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For reasons with which we are all familiar, the British Army has unique experience in performing at the cusp of civilian and military operations. Like my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the achievement and reputation of the British forces in Bosnia. I welcome the Government's constructive response to the Committee's report, about which, I dare say, we shall hear more from my hon. Friend the Minister.
The first and major recommendation of the Committee's report, which was published in December last year, was that the presence of a multinational force in Bosnia be continued. That demand was at the heart of the debate in the House 12 months ago—it was supported by all those who spoke—when it was far from certain that the SFOR mandate would be extended beyond its expiry date in June 1998.
As we now know, the NATO permanent council decided on 18 February to continue SFOR's operation at current levels until the general elections in September, with some reductions after that date if circumstances permit. I note that the council will review the situation on the ground periodically and the SFOR mission every six months, but that no precise duration has been specified in the mandate.
Earlier this year, the United Nations high representative, Carlos Westendorp, said that he thought that the SFOR follow-up force should remain in force for three more years. I also note with interest that President Clinton has said that the mission should be tied to concrete benchmarks, not to a deadline, and that it must have clear objectives that, when met, will create a self-sustaining, secure environment, which would permit troop withdrawal. I am sure that that is the right approach, to which, I hope, the British Government will lend their support. The truth is that progress on the Dayton objectives has been painfully slow over the past 12 months. However, it is equally true—and universally recognised, not least among ordinary Bosnians—that there would have been no progress at all without SFOR.
The problems are obvious: the majority of common institutions are operating inadequately; illegal structures of government persist in the federation; there is a lack of strong multi-ethnic political parties and a structured civil society; and there are no functioning public corporations. If the UN high representative had not assumed sweeping powers, there would be no common citizenship laws, no customs union and no common flag—not even common number plates on cars. Human rights violations remain

endemic and comprehensive plans to facilitate the return of the refugees have not been implemented—it is estimated that 600,000 Bosnian refugees remain abroad and that more than 800,000 Bosnians remain displaced internally.
Against that depressing backdrop, it is worth recognising that important, if limited, progress has been made, notably the shift, following the elections in November last year, towards a more moderate political regime in the Republika Srpska. The new Government, headed by Milorad Dodic, are supported by both moderate Muslim and Serb deputies. They have transferred the seat of Government from Pale to Banja Luka; they have decided to abolish all the laws adopted by the previous Parliament, which was dominated by the radical nationalists under Radovan Karadzic; they have promised strict implementation of the Dayton accords; and they have offered an operational plan to encourage Muslim and Croat refugees to return. Those moves have triggered the release of international aid to Republika Srpska—further grants and credits will be released as the commitments are implemented.
We should not exaggerate the progress that has been made, but it is impossible to believe that such virtuous developments could have occurred, paving the way to greater normalisation, without the presence of SFOR. There has also been progress in Bosnia in arms control, in confidence-building and security-building measures and in restructuring and reforming the police. There has been some economic revival in the federation, to which the minorities have begun to return—to a lesser extent, they are also returning to Republika Srpska.
In last year's debate on Bosnia, I argued that only the return of the refugees—Serbs, Muslims and Croats alike—would bring long-term stability to Bosnia. I made the obvious point that refugees would not return while the indicted war criminals remained at large. This time last year, of 75 indicted war criminals in all parts of Bosnia, only nine had been arrested and only two prosecuted. That is another area in which progress has been made over the past 12 months, and in which British forces have played an important role and even forced the pace. Hon. Members will remember that, on 10 July last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House the arrest by British troops of the indicted war criminals Kovacevic and Drljaca, the latter of whom was fatally wounded during his capture. I understand that nearly 30 indicted war criminals are now in the hands of the international criminal tribunal at The Hague—a third of them are currently standing trial.
No one should underestimate the risks entailed in the pursuit of the indicted war criminals, both to the troops and of creating political instability, but the pursuit must continue—Karadzic remains a target for the international community—and must apply equally to Muslim and Croat, as well as to Serb, war criminals. Only SFOR can carry out that pursuit, which is a further reason why its mandate has rightly been extended.
Bosnia and Herzegovina represent an immense and continuing tragedy. With hindsight—which is, of course, always 20:20—it is now generally accepted that an early force projection by the west might have held the ring between the warring sides, so preventing the tragedy from unravelling. I think that that lesson has been learnt and I


cannot commend too highly the resolute position that the British Government are adopting on the current crisis in Kosovo.
The persuasive powers of President Yeltsin have evidently not prevailed over Slobodan Milosevic. It is perfectly clear that the Serbian army and militias will remain in Kosovo, but it is intolerable that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be using aircraft, heavy artillery and tanks against its own largely unarmed so-called citizens—the intention may not be ethnic cleansing, but the effects are starting to seem as if it were. If the international community has the means to stop such action, it should use them.
Stability in the Balkans would probably not be served by the secession of Kosovo from what remains of Yugoslavia, but Kosovo must subsist—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haslehurst): Order. The debate is about Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although references in parallel to Kosovo are permissible, the debate is not about Kosovo.

Mr. Hill: I fully accept your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is difficult to debate the situation in Bosnia, which has regional implications, without taking into account the situation in Kosovo. With your permission, I should like to outline the implications of President Milosevic's actions in Kosovo.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating the Select Committee's report on Bosnia and Herzegovina. The hon. Gentleman would be out of order if he pursued his intention.

Mr. Hill: I accept, of course, your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
SFOR's record in Bosnia has been outstanding—it has held the ring. Lessons for Kosovo can certainly be learnt from the experience of the projection of international force into Bosnia, and I am sure that the British Government and the international community will bear such considerations in mind. I hope that we shall hear reassuring words about further international action in the Balkans from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Michael Colvin: On behalf of the Defence Committee, I thank the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) for taking such an interest in our report and for participating in this debate. I only wish that more hon. Members were present today, as the defence of the realm is a crucial matter. When I entered the House, probably more than a third of hon. Members had some experience of the armed forces—many compulsorily, some voluntarily. That wealth of experience is now missing, so I commend to the hon. Gentleman the parliamentary armed forces scheme, which is run by Sir Neil Thorne, a former Member of Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman takes part in future debates on defence matters, he should perhaps concentrate more on defence than on the politics in neighbouring countries—the scheme could do him a great deal of good.
May I also congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of our Select Committee. If patience is a virtue, he is certainly virtuous because, as the longest-serving member, his patience has been rewarded with the chairmanship of the Committee, which has a long record of consensus—one that will be maintained, I am sure, under his chairmanship.
I shall also use this opportunity to pay tribute to previous Committee members. Our membership was thoroughly devastated at the general election and other members left for other reasons. We must all acknowledge the valuable work that previous Committees did and pay tribute to new members. If ever there was a fresh leavening of the loaf, we have had it. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) for the way in which they have adapted to the work. If the armed forces can put ladies in the front line, why cannot the Defence Committee also move with the times and introduce a female element? And very useful it has been.
I was looking forward to what would have been my fifth visit to Bosnia-Herzegovina with the Defence Committee, but instead I found myself attending the assembly of the Western European Union in Paris. My Chairman will no doubt be relieved to know that the worsening situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and neighbouring states was the principal item on our agenda and we spent some time discussing what sort of force should succeed the stabilisation force. Everyone agrees that the continuing presence of British troops in SFOR and the contribution that British officers, in particular, have made to the headquarters are key elements in the administration of the Dayton agreement. Any successor force must include the British and, of course, the Americans.
Although Dayton has imposed a durable and expensive ceasefire and warfare may have ceased, no one could say that peace has come to Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the authorities have been lamentably slow to honour their obligations under the peace agreement. How to achieve a permanent peace is beyond everyone at present and the growing tensions in Kosovo and Albania mean that the situation in the Balkans will get worse before it gets any better.
The Muslims signed the Dayton accord because they thought that NATO would intercede on their behalf and the Croats and Serbs signed it because they presumed that that would never happen. That extraordinary ambiguity is the basis of Dayton's success in maintaining the ceasefire. Now the time has come for a renewed or fresh mandate for NATO's continued presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which no one doubts will happen.
One welcome development has had a painful down side. The emergence of the precarious democracy in Republika Srpska has forestalled moves for a referendum on its future. The hon. Member for Streatham referred to that. We know that a majority of Serbs favour seceding from Bosnia-Herzegovina and joining up with Serbia. That too was President Milosevic's strategy and because he has so far failed to achieve the greater Serbia in that way, he has turned his unwelcome attentions to Kosovo.
Our Select Committee report makes many recommendations, but I shall touch on three that are relevant to the strategic defence review and one other. First, on strategic heavy lift, 1 found it particularly


embarrassing to go to Marchwood military port to see the departure of our troops and equipment to the former Yugoslavia and to realise that they had to wait for a fortnight for the arrival not of British but of American and Ukrainian ships for the heavy lift to be made.
The Government must tackle the problem of merchant naval heavy lift as part of the strategic defence review. I acknowledge that the previous Government successfully torpedoed our Merchant Navy through their fiscal policies, but if this Government do not tackle that problem, we will be in trouble. Although it can be assumed that we can hire the ships required for heavy lift on the open market, there is no guarantee that we will be able to get the crews required, so I hope that the Government will deal with that in the SDR.
On heavy lift by air, there has been a long debate and the previous Defence Committee produced a report on the subject, recommending a mixed fleet of the successor to the C130 Hercules—the C130J—and possibly the future large aircraft made by Airbus Industrie GIE. The latter is still on the drawing board and is unlikely ever to get off it. In fact, the Germans are now in discussions with the Russians and Ukrainians to develop the Antonov for heavy lift.
Also, according to frequent reports in the newspapers, it looks as though the Government will either purchase or lease the C17 from the United States. There are two versions of the C17; one military, the other civil. The Government should think carefully about the armaments on the military version. If we purchase the civil version, however, it will be completely unarmed, but some military defence will be necessary in the theatres of war in which it will be flying or it will be a sitting duck. The Government should think carefully before plumping for the civil version.
The second point is that, when the previous Government cut our armed forces by about 30 per cent., they cut defence medical services by about 40 per cent. The structure they put in place, in particular the military district hospital units, was good—they were simply undermanned. The SDR should also tackle that and consider the role that the Territorial Army could play in providing the expertise and skills required for field hospitals. If Britain were engaged in high-intensity warfare, we would not be able to set up the required number of field hospitals. Our Committee has looked into that matter and it is referred to in the report that we are debating. That is one area in which the Government must do something.
The third point on the SDR is the cost of our operations in SFOR. It is estimated that in 1997–98 the total cost to Britain will be £200 million. That is a charge that must go on the Consolidated Fund, not our hard-pressed defence budget.
One of the six common institutions established under Dayton to cover the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina was the Standing Committee on Military Matters, which was the last of the institutions to meet—last September in Sarajevo—but which has had a crucial role to play in long-term security and stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in facilitating dialogue on security arrangements with the international community. Our Committee concluded:
in order to promote greater stability, the programme should be developed away from its current bilateral status towards a NATO-based programme more fully integrated with the role of the SCMM, a role which in turn must be supported and developed into something closer to a partnership for peace.

That is an important recommendation and I would like the Minister's comments on it when he replies to the debate.
In conclusion, I shall state the obvious—but it is always something that needs to be repeated. Visiting our troops on joint operations with the forces of other nations, with which one can draw comparisons, brings a mixture of satisfaction and pride—satisfaction in seeing a job really well done and being able, as a Committee, to do something to help them and pride in confirming that our service men and women are the best in the world and the best led.
I commend our report to the House.

Laura Moffatt: It is difficult to express my feelings about my visit to Bosnia and the subsequent production of our report. As the House has heard, the Defence Committee has previously visited Bosnia several times, but as a very inexperienced member of the Committee I made my first visit there under the careful supervision of our Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who kept a close eye on us. New members were given a great opportunity to express themselves. I am extremely grateful for that and for the comments made by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin).
I have thoroughly enjoyed my time on the Defence Committee. The visit was a moving experience. It is difficult to believe that the industrial and economic base of Bosnia and Herzegovina was so badly destroyed that just 6 per cent. of it was functioning after the war—although we could see the devastating effect of that.
I want to concentrate on the medical services—an issue close to my heart. On our visit to 24 Armoured Field Ambulance, it was amazing to see the work that was done, but there are practical ways in which to do the job more efficiently. It is difficult for medical people to set up a whole new service in an area of which nearly a third has been destroyed. I was sensitive to the views of those who said that we would gradually have to reduce the service that we provide to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina so that they can develop their own medical services, but that will be difficult; medical people naturally want to help—and I commend them for doing so sensitively.
There are practical difficulties. Previous Committees commented seriously on the ways in which operations must be conducted in the field. As a result, a new containerised operating theatre was provided—the GIAT. There are still difficulties, however, as it is cramped, and anyone taller than 6 ft would find it difficult to work there. I urge the Ministry of Defence to continue to work with experienced users of that sort of operating theatre to try to produce the best facilities. The French and Canadian facility is better than that available to our medical service personnel.
Laboratory staff in the field must work in tented accommodation. As a nurse, I could see how difficult it was to keep those areas clinically clean or sterile. Like the report, I urge that we consider containerised laboratory services so that we can ensure that areas are clean and can provide the best service.
A much more serious problem for those who work in the medical services of both the reserve and regular forces is overstretch, although that word oversimplifies what I


want to say. They have to adapt from life in the United Kingdom to serve as doctors, consultants, nurses, paramedics, laboratory staff and all the others who make up a good medical service, and goodness knows the service in Bosnia and Herzegovina is good.
There is no doubt that the previous Government's medical services reorganisation was a disaster. I have heard it said that the service was just underfunded, but the reorganisation was fundamentally flawed and it is causing great difficulty for those who attempt to work in the national health service at home and those who serve abroad.
As we travelled from one base to another, we heard dissatisfaction at the way in which the service is being run. Because the SFOR operation was winding down, many consultants felt guilty about huge waiting lists at home. The NHS is a hard-pressed service in which doctors, nurses and everyone else want to do their best, and I urge a careful consideration of how we work with the NHS through the Defence Secondary Care Agency to ensure that we get the best from our serving forces. They should feel that they are contributing, not that they are letting down their colleagues at home. Some felt that by going away to serve they might cause extra difficulty at home. I hope that that has been fully considered in the strategic defence review.
I found the visit very moving and I was privileged to go to Bosnia and to contribute to the report. Everyone in the House will be full of admiration for our serving forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The esteem in which they are held by the people of those countries is unbelievable. If our troops do that sort of job for us by helping to create stability in the region and contributing so much to peace, it is beholden on us not to let them down.

Mr. Martin Bell: I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for his speech and praise his record as a doughty champion of our armed services. He is held in much higher esteem than most politicians by the services, and has written a seminal book on the subject.
There are, of course, no quick fixes. The Defence Committee has seen the situation on the ground. My own familiarity with it is different, and relates to earlier. There can, however, be slow fixes, and IFOR and SFOR can be regarded as a type of cast on a fracture. The cast must stay in place for a while, until the application of pressure can be eased. We shall never return to the multi-ethnic, multiracial, harmonious Bosnia of old. It is gone. If there was a time for peace with justice, that time was April 1992, and we and all the western democracies shall for ever reproach ourselves for acting so late.
What we are preventing now is the return of genocide. Every day the peace lasts, it strengthens. The conflict will not go on for ever. The situation is improving and we must thank our soldiers for that. From experience, I know that our soldiers lead the world, not only in war fighting, but in peace keeping, peace making and peace building. As I have said often before, we have the best little army in the world and I am confident that it will remain so after the strategic defence review.
Let it be said that there are costs—the casualties, the dead and the injured, especially in the early months and years of our involvement. To this day, there is the danger

of a return of warfare. It is not a safe environment for anyone, including SFOR and British troops, as long as mines remain in the ground. The casualties, at a time of overstretch in our armed forces, also extend to soldiers' families. Often, especially in the early months, a battalion would return from duty in Bosnia to find that its casualties included 10 per cent. or more of its marriages. A soldier would gain a medal, but lose a family. What kind of a trade-off is that?
In one specific case, the casualties include a brave soldier of the Parachute Regiment who was arrested last October under the Official Secrets Acts. He still has not been charged, but his career and his reputation are in ruins. When the investigation is over, I shall wish to hold the Ministry of Defence police to account; nor shall my sword sleep in my hand on that point. He, too, is a casualty of our Bosnian involvement.
There is no point in living through such experiences unless we learn from them. As we contemplate a follow-on force, some serious lessons can be learned: one is that if we are going to threaten force, we must be willing to use it or our bluff will be called. Another is that whatever is done must be done within the context of international law, which, to be honest, is one of the problems in Kosovo at the moment.
We have learnt that the application of sanctions is a cruel and blunt weapon. They tend to hurt those whom they are designed to help: they reward the villains and the black marketeers and punish the little people. They did so in Iraq and it was certainly so in Serbia at the time of the Bosnian war.
The most important lesson is that there are issues of right and wrong as well as of national security. It is in the interests of our national security that we help to maintain the peace in Europe, but we must not forget the element of right and wrong, of doing what we should and believing that Bosnian lives matter. British lives have been sacrificed; if we walk away now, that will have been in vain. Sometimes it is necessary to do what is right rather than what is expedient and we must stay the course in Bosnia.

12 noon

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I, too, congratulate the Select Committee on its report. It acquired much knowledge and wisdom on a short visit.
United Kingdom involvement in SFOR is in the highest traditions of professionalism. I have seen UN peacekeeping forces at work on the Golan heights, and I have no illusions about the difficulties involved in such situations, especially when a multinational force is involved.
In Bosnia-Herzegovina, we are involved in building peace, not merely keeping it; there is a distinct difference. In that context, it is especially timely that the Select Committee highlighted the need to buttress moderate forces in the region. Sometimes that is done overtly, as the report said, as in the timely interventions to protect civil rights in the so-called battle of the buses before the elections last November, and sometimes it is done more subtly, by reminding the population of the window beyond, which involves economic reconstruction.
The King's Royal Hussars played a commendable role in re-establishing dairy farms, distributing children's magazines in Serbo-Croat and in English, and supplying


a radio service in and around the area of Sipovo. The rebuilding of civil society is a key element in the operations of any peacekeeping force.
I recently returned from a conference of young European politicians in Slovenia, where I met representatives from Sarajevo and Tuzla, who emphasised the need for support and encouragement in that rebuilding. Before the civil war, Bosnia-Herzegovina was a sophisticated, multinational, multiracial, multi-ethnic and, by and large, multi-tolerant society, especially in the urbanised areas.
SFOR, and the British troops that it contains, continues its commitment to the prosecution of war criminals. No one can be in any doubt about the logistical difficulties in apprehending those people and the practical difficulties for the tribunal in The Hague, but it is extremely important to press ahead. We should remember the post-war experience with Nazi war criminals. It is not always easy or even possible to bring such people to justice overnight, or even within two or three years, but anything that the defence force can do should receive our support and endorsement.
I am glad that the report draws attention to the continuing problems with human rights. In the traumatised situation of Bosnia-Herzegovina today, no one should expect all the functioning civil rights of a western social democracy, but we must expect certain basic decencies. One of my constituents, who served as a volunteer in the forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was imprisoned, initially without charge, as a result of the political situation there, and we should draw attention to such cases.
The report is a snapshot of the aftermath of the civil war, and in its estimate of the cost and its assessment of the need for an over-the-horizon presence, it underlines how wrong Bismarck was when he said that the Balkans were not worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier.
We need to educate and inform the public about our involvement in the Balkans. There is an understandable temptation to give up because of the apparent incomprehensibility of the region. I recently came across a 1912 cartoon of John Bull being sucked into the whirlpool of the Balkan wars of that time. We ignored the problem then, and the result was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo and the first world war. We cannot ignore it now, and that is one of the reasons why I welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's firm stance on Kosovo, and the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
It is important to remember that the Bosnian crisis has its origins in the situation in Kosovo. All parties are responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia, and the lack of political leadership contributed to the situation that unravelled in Bosnia. In 1989, Slobodan Milosevic used the 600th anniversary of the battle of Kosovo—a traumatic event in Serb history—to underline Serbian demands and to attempt to remove the region's autonomy, and that event precipitated the removal of Slovenia and Croatia from the federation and resulted ultimately in the spill-over into Bosnia of the conflict between Serbia and Croatia.
Unless we understand the interconnections of the areas and the increased importance of maintaining a presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we shall suffer the consequences. The Serb-Croat conflict and the collapse of Yugoslavia

in 1991 sucked Bosnia-Herzegovina into civil war, and Kosovo could suck in Albania and Macedonia and, eventually, Greece and Turkey.
To sustain and to build peace, as we are attempting to do in Bosnia-Herzegovina, is never an easy option, but if NATO is to retain credibility, we must all continue our efforts in that direction. The report says:
In summary, considerations of altruism and national self-interest lead to the same conclusion in respect of our involvement in former Yugoslavia. The price of peace would be far outweighed by the costs of a resumption of war.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: When the Select Committee last visited Germany, every unit that we visited, including RAF Bruggen and 7 Armoured Brigade, told us of the difficulties of sustaining the current operational posture of our armed forces in their deployment in Bosnia, the Gulf and elsewhere.
My regiment was in Höhne but, sadly, we were not able to visit it, because the vast majority of the troops were supporting the eighth squadron tour in Bosnia. The experience of the Light Dragoons shows how our operational tour commitment, which is now indefinite, with the extension of SFOR, is beginning to undermine our military efficiency and capability.
I want to draw out one point for the Minister: the Prime Minister thinks that we can go on an adventure in Kosovo, without re-examining the state of the defence budget and thinking about the commitments that it is sustaining, but in my judgment, from what I have heard in the Defence Committee and from the feedback that I have received, the armed forces are no longer capable of sustaining another indefinite operational commitment. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will restrain the Prime Minister from thinking that Britain can take on a neo-imperial role and commit its armed forces around the world. If the Prime Minister wanted to behave like that, there would have to be another defence review and substantially increased resources would have to be put into the defence budget.
We have learned lessons from Bosnia, but some hon. Members have drawn the wrong lessons from it in respect of Kosovo, which is a different situation. We should not get drawn in, not only for reasons of foreign policy and international law, but for reasons of practicality and the state of the defence budget.

Mr. John Maples: We have heard some interesting and well-informed speeches. It has been an eye-opener to hear so many speeches from Government Back Benchers calling for a proactive and obviously more expensive defence policy. Those sentiments will not have been lost on the Minister.
The Defence Committee, whose valuable work has highlighted key issues, has said that SFOR' s work is incredibly valuable, and we would all agree with that. There is danger of a return to war in Bosnia, but SFOR has succeeded in maintaining an effective ceasefire since late 1995, which is a not inconsiderable achievement. There has been less progress on the political front, but we always knew that that would take time and there are signs of hope.


I want to deal with the consequences of British involvement in SFOR for defence policy in terms of overstretch, and with welfare issues for British troops serving with SFOR, which emerged from the Committee's report. We are told that, under the renewed mandate, SFOR is to maintain its current strength of 34,000 until after the elections in September. That strength will then decline—it is not clear by how much, but it is clear that American participation will reduce. Is there any plan to reduce British numbers?
At paragraph 18 of the report, the Defence Committee highlights the fact that reducing numbers without reducing the role would pose dangers for troops as well as for the peace process. Does the Minister think that a reduction in numbers in September, if it takes place, would he likely to pose dangers for the British contingent or for any other parts of SFOR?
Although continued American participation seems to be secure for the immediate future, Congress is clearly unhappy for various reasons, such as the timetable and the cost. We must acknowledge the serious danger that the United States will further reduce or even eliminate the role of its ground troops in Bosnia in the foreseeable future. For many of us, a largely unwritten condition of our involvement and the involvement of many of our NATO and other partners in Bosnia has been that American troops must be on the ground with us. That must remain a fundamental precondition of our involvement. In their reply to the report, the Government agreed that American forces should continue to play a significant role,
provided force is NATO led … and that other allies participate".
Does that mean American participation? For many of us, it does.
SFOR' s task seems likely to take several years and could become indefinite. Lieutenant General Pike, the British deputy commander, foresees a three to five-year role for SFOR, and there is a strong possibility that American involvement will cease before its task is complete. That task seems to have become open-ended, and the danger of that happening is predictable in such operations. I hope that the Government will reflect on that when formulating their approach to other problems in the Balkans.
Our armed forces have long-term commitments in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland. No assumptions are being made in the defence review about early troop level reductions in Northern Ireland and, clearly, no such assumptions could be made about reductions in Bosnia. It is distinctly possible that the Government will decide to commit further troops to the Balkans in Macedonia and Kosovo, so the level and the extent of our overseas commitments could increase. That does not take account of a hot war breaking out, as it nearly did in the Gulf a few months ago. It seems to Conservative Members that all of that has serious implications for manpower planning in our armed forces and in the strategic defence review. We shall examine the review closely, to see how it deals with those problems.
Welfare issues were highlighted by the report. The Committee said that the biggest grumble among our troops was about telephone calls. I realise that it is difficult for a Ministry dealing with a £22 billion budget

to change down into a low enough gear to deal with such simple issues, but they are often at the heart of recruitment, retention and morale. The Government should address the matter more seriously than they have: one short telephone call a week may be enough for people who do not want to talk to their parents or their children, but it is not enough for married people with husbands or wives or families.
Hon. Members should think about soldiers who are allowed one short telephone call to their families each week while away from home for six months, serving their country. Those few minutes would be totally inadequate to deal with problems in the marriage or with one of the children at school. The report called for an increase, but the Government have effectively dismissed that out of hand by saying that the current arrangements are "fair". To many of us, there is no way that they are fair. Such people are serving their country a long way from home, for months at a time. I urge the Government to think again. The cost cannot be all that great, and wonders could be done for morale, and even for recruitment.
Threats of family breakdown are a serious cause of people leaving the services and the consequent recruitment problems. A small sum spent on telephone bills might save marriages and, in the long run, recruitment costs. If the Government cannot go as far as we and the Defence Committee would like them to do, could they at least be more generous with service men and women who have wives or husbands or children at home?
A Territorial Army officer who had spent six months in Bosnia recently told me about not only the short time allowed on the telephone, but the fact that the telephone system was incredibly unreliable. People would tell their wives to be ready with the children for a call at 5 o'clock on a Friday, but the call would not happen because the system was inefficient and did not function. What is the cause of that and what is being done about it?
Overstretch is producing serious consequences. Over two years, the average British soldier can expect to spend six months in Bosnia, six months in Northern Ireland and, probably, time overseas in training. Tours last an average of six months, with some for specialists lasting up to 12 months, and, because of our commitments, the period between tours in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland is often very brief. Many of our service personnel are away from home so much that they are often unable even to take all their leave entitlement, and they get only two weeks' home leave during a six-month posting abroad. All that means that service personnel spend much less time with their families than has been the case over the past 20 or 30 years. That imposes serious problems and strains on relationships.
Those are major problems for armed forces personnel and their families, but one of the main pressures that cause people to leave the armed forces comes from their families because of long absences from home. The costs are borne by the families, and often end in divorce, but they are also borne by us as taxpayers through the need for additional recruitment. May I ask the Minister, if I could have his attention for a moment, what the Ministry is doing to address those issues? Does he foresee the problem of overstretch getting worse or better? What level of attention and importance does the Ministry give to welfare issues? It seems to Conservative Members not to be as high as it should be.


Our troops are, as always, doing a wonderful job and we can, as we always are, be justly proud of them, but extended peacekeeping missions abroad pose serious questions for defence policy. I hope that the Minister will address them. We shall examine the strategic defence review closely to see how they have been dealt with, and we expect the Government seriously to consider the welfare issues raised by the Committee and at least to make immediate changes to the cost and reliability of the telephone system.
While we are fulfilling commitments that result in extended periods away from home for our troops, we owe it to them and to their families to treat them with the utmost consideration. If we fail to do so, not only will recruitment and retention problems worsen, but we, as a nation, will fail to honour and value our armed forces in the dangerous and difficult situations in which we place them.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on his presentation of the Committee's report. I know how much work he and the Committee have done on this, as on a number of other issues. The presentation of his first report must be a milestone in his career.
I welcome the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) to the Opposition Front Bench. I know that he has views on, and experience of, defence and the armed forces as a result of his work as a parliamentary private secretary and, subsequently, Economic Secretary to the Treasury between 1987 and 1992—the period in which the cuts in personnel that resulted in the current overstretch were initiated. I hope that his time at the Ministry of Defence will grant him a less illusory perception of the work that the armed forces actually do. I shall return to the question of overstretch later.
Almost every speaker has placed Bosnia in the context of current events, relating personnel and other problems to the terrible and dangerous events in neighbouring states. Although the problems are concentrated in Bosnia, all those hon. Members would expect me to make a brief reference to events in Kosovo. The key to resolving the situation there remains political; but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said after the NATO Defence Ministers' meeting last week, President Milosevic must understand that diplomacy to end the Kosovo violence is being backed up by the threat of force. As for further measures—some of which we were asked to rule out by the Opposition Front Bench and other Opposition Members—we will rule out, or rule in, no options at this stage. Our objective must be to put the maximum pressure on President Milosevic.
I must tell those who, unsuccessfully, urge me to lecture the Prime Minister and tell him that we ought to diminish our share in world responsibilities that I will not do that. I think that what the Prime Minister says is absolutely right.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Reid: I have only nine minutes in which to reply. With all respect, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot take interventions.
The NATO Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels last week directed NATO to conduct Monday's air exercise in Albania. I am glad to say that, far from shrinking from that, the United Kingdom was able—and pleased—to contribute six Jaguars and a Tristar to the exercise. I am sure that the House is proud that our forces took part in that international warning to President Milosevic that diplomacy would be backed by force.
In the wider context of Bosnia, let me say that the Government welcome the Committee's report and, in general, share its positive view. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited Bosnia on a number of occasions to engage in discussions with our commanding officers and troops. I visited our troops only a fortnight ago, and my right hon. Friend will visit them shortly. Like the Committee, I was struck by the steady improvements that had been made in the condition of the country.
The tragedy of Bosnia is obvious to anyone who goes there. It is a magnificent and beautiful country with tremendous potential, reduced to dire straits by the war. Thankfully, however, there have been steady improvements, and the restoration of normal life is inching forward. I am proud that our national contribution to SFOR continues to play a large part in the progress that has been made.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that, although the smiles, diplomacy, tact, courage and endurance of our soldiers on the streets of Bosnia are important, other things are important, too. Our tanks and AS90 guns, designed for high-intensity warfare, have provided invaluable support for our peacekeepers in Bosnia, where the might of heavy metal and heavy artillery is understood and respected. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about high-intensity capability, weaponry and training: those elements should be part of our peacekeeping missions. But success has a price. I am not referring merely to the sacrifices made by our soldiers in Bosnia, although the House will note with sadness the death on Thursday of Lance Corporal Kevin Bell in an accident in Bosnia. Our condolences go to his next of kin—and, indeed, to all who have lost their loved ones in the service of their country in Bosnia and elsewhere.
The situation on the ground has been transformed since 1995. The fighting has ended; refugee return is picking up in Republika Srpska, among other places. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that some 7,000 people returned to their homes in April, and almost as many in May. Of course we would all like the figures to be higher, but they are very encouraging none the less. During my recent visit, I saw for myself both the successes and the problems of refugee return—for problems remain in such areas as Drvar and Derventa. We have made it clear that all parties must live up to their Dayton obligations to accept and manage refugee returns, and that the recent violence—particularly in Drvar and Derventa—is unacceptable. Of course SFOR will do what it can to help, but the problem is essentially political. We cannot force returns at the point of a gun.
There are a number of promising developments. For instance, Bosnia now has a new flag and a national vehicle registration system, and has agreed a new national currency. Although none of those developments would have taken place without continuous pressure from the international community, they are important steps on the road to normality.


There are other signs of progress, some of which were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Mr. Hill), for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden). Above all, the House will recall the pre-eminent role that British SFOR forces have played in the detention of war crimes indictees in Bosnia. Of the nine who have been detained over the past year, five were detained as a direct result of action by British SFOR troops, and two were detained with their assistance. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the courage and professionalism of the forces involved. The United Kingdom has also been heavily involved in the important task of de-mining, which is another positive development in the sorry battlefield that has been Bosnia.
The consclusion that I draw from all those developments is that the international community, and the United Kingdom, must remain engaged in Bosnia—but not indefinitely. It is critical for the people in Bosnia, especially the political leaders, to start taking responsibility for their own future as soon as possible. We must not perpetuate a dependency culture in Bosnia.

Mr. Maples: Does the Minister agree with Lieutenant General Pike that SFOR's commitment now looks like a commitment of three to five years?

Dr. Reid: We shall take the stages in Bosnia as they come. We cannot commit ourselves 10 or even five years in advance, or make predictions. What I will say is what I said in 1994, from the Front Bench where the hon. Gentleman now sits, that we could be in for a 10-year haul in Bosnia. The hon. Gentleman's predecessors—who

were sitting on Government Benches—openly mocked me. I think Opposition Members have some prescience in these matters, which may not be shared throughout the House.
We have made it plain that we are not in Bosnia indefinitely. We have said that we shall assist, but that the benchmarks will be the state of affairs rather than a timetable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South referred to the size and shape of the force in Bosnia after 20 June. The United Nations has now extended SFOR' s mandate. The United Kingdom will play its part in the successor force, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce the precise nature of our contribution in the not too distant future.
Hon. Members have raised a number of issues. As we would expect, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) raised the issue of overstretch, as did several others. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about the effect on families. We are well aware of the problem. The hon. Gentleman will understand me when I say that we do not intend to take lectures on overstretch from people who were part of a Government who cut personnel by 32 per cent. and who spent £500 million only to leave us 7,500 troops short. The Labour Government, in one short year, have turned those figures round, and are now recruiting 67 per cent. more into the Army than the Conservative Government did in the previous year. We have reduced the shortfall by 1,000 in 12 months. For the first time in three decades and against a background of falling unemployment, we have increased the numbers coming into the Army.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the strategic defence review will give this matter a high priority. We recognise the role that our soldiers have played in Bosnia.

Millennium Bug

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for responding to the debate. He is a senior Cabinet Minister and he, at least, recognises the importance of this issue. I am delighted that he is present to respond to the Audit Commission's report "A Stitch in Time—facing the challenge of the year 2000 date change", which was launched today. This report is an alarm bell which should shake the Government into action. It is a shocking account of the dangerous unpreparedness of local authorities, health trusts and emergency services in tackling the enormous problem of the millennium bug.
The millennium bug is a problem that any date-sensitive equipment will have when we switch from the 1900s to 2000. To save memory, many pieces of equipment use only the last two digits of the year: 1998 becomes 98, 1999 becomes 99 and 2000 becomes 00, which is exactly the same as for 1900. My credit card has already been refused by a petrol station because the two digits at the end of the expiry date are 00. I am used to my credit card being rejected for other reasons, but not for that.
We must remember that, in 2000, many people will not go back to work until 4 January, and that 2000 is a leap year. What has the Prime Minister said about the millennium bug problem? On 30 March 1998, he said:
If we don't tackle this problem, the economy will slow as many companies divert resources to cope with computer failures and some will even go bust. So the millennium bug is a serious issue. This is one deadline that is non-negotiable. Normal processes will not meet it. This must be treated as an emergency.
Unilever has gone so far as to suggest that the millennium bug could cause a worldwide recession. Problems are already occurring. There is the famous story of the food consignments that were rejected three times because the computer kept reading the date 2000 as 1900. In 1996, a date time problem shut down two aluminium smelting plants in New Zealand. It took 1 million New Zealand dollars to open them up again.
Many people think that the millennium bug affects only their personal computers, but nothing could be further from the truth. In 1995, 200 million computers and 7,000 million pieces of equipment with date-sensitive timing or embedded systems were sold worldwide. So 7,000 million pieces were sold in one year alone, and that was three years ago. The problem does not affect just personal computers.
Page 11 of the Audit Commission's report paints a vivid picture of the day in the life of a director of finance of a local authority. His diary entry reads:
Drove into the office to pick up some homework—chaos on the roads despite the lack of traffic—seemed to be a problem with all the traffic lights en route.
Pulled up to the car park—barrier refused to open—must be a problem with my swipe card. Left car on road.
Walked up the drive to municipal offices and noticed that a ground floor window had been smashed (why no alarm?)—make a note to speak to head of security on Tuesday when he gets back from the Bank Holiday.
Punched in the door entry code—wouldn't allow me in! Had to climb in through the broken window!!!
Lifts on my floor didn't seem to be working. They can't all be out of commission? What on earth is going on?

Still—at least our IT people made sure this Millennium Bug problem hasn't affected our main financial system.
We do not usually associate traffic lights, lifts, door entry codes, burglar alarms and barrier controls with the millennium bug. A crematorium had to spend £30,000 to replace its embedded chip. Those are all serious problems.
The British Medical Association contacted me yesterday. It is extremely concerned about the Audit Commission's report. It lists some of the problems that it foresees will occur on 1 January 2000. It includes:
lists failing to work
infusion pumps and ventilation equipment needing resetting
freezers storing blood and IV fluids malfunctioning
radiotherapy and chemotherapy equipment unable to deliver correct dosages".
It says that GPs will also be affected by
loss of patient records
hold ups and errors in screening programmes
delays in securing vaccines
equipment failures
disruption to call answering services.
Dr. Kenneth Robertson, chairman of the BMA's information technology committee, has warned:
Doctors need to realise that any piece of electronic equipment more complex than a fan heater is likely to be affected by the millennium problem.
Yesterday, the chief of the health service, Sir Alan Langlands, stated rather worryingly that he "could not guarantee" that all patients would survive. He would not put a figure on the number of likely deaths. However, in the Daily Express yesterday a leading doctor from St. Bartholomew's hospital, who is also a computer expert, estimated that the figure could reach 1,500. We were reminded of the three-day computer breakdown in the London ambulance service in 1992, which is alleged to have resulted in 20 deaths.
The report does not seek to sensationalise. It states:
For the national health service and local government, there are serious risks to life and health.
It further states:
hospitals could be susceptible to a malfunction of medical equipment … that communications systems used by the emergency services might fail to work, increasing risks to the public… Traffic lights may stop working, increasing the risk of accidents".
The Audit Commission reports that, even with all those risks, less than 10 per cent. of local authorities and health trusts have contingency or appropriate plans in place. It says that half the local authorities and trusts have not prioritised what is to be done, and less than a third of local authorities and trusts have documented their strategy for dealing with the problem. The report states that only a third have undertaken a review of existing support and maintenance contracts, only a third have made specific budgetary provision and a third still have no IT inventory for the equipment or contracts.
The country is facing a serious crisis of epidemic proportions. This electronic plague will affect us all. Cap Gemini, a computer consultancy, has predicted that one in seven organisations in Europe and America will not be able to complete the necessary work on time, even if they started now. The Audit Commission report states:
National health service trust chief executives have expressed some concern over the resources that are required to undertake a thorough testing programme. Few feel that they have the expertise or resources to test any but the simplest systems.


What are the Government doing? We had an indication of that from the Prime Minister 10 weeks ago in his speech on this subject. What has happened since? Not a lot, other than the passing of 70 days: we are 70 days closer to the millennium time bomb. The Prime Minister's action plan is risible. It is like sticking a band-aid over a bursting dam. It amounts to a national publicity campaign. Has it started? If so, where?
In a written question, I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much had been spent on this wonderful advertising campaign, but the question has been given to the Department of Trade and Industry to answer. Who is in control of the issue? With all the confusion of responsibility, we still have no noticeable campaign.

Mr. Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: No. I am sorry, but I have only limited time.
There is an advice hotline for small and medium businesses. How well publicised is that? How many have used the hotline? Is the telephone number an official secret? Another of the Government's earth-shattering pledges is co-operation with the BBC on raising awareness of this issue. That has also passed me by—perhaps they are working it into an episode of EastEnders. It is depressing enough as it is, but imagine how much more depressing it would be if disasters were to befall Albert square because of the inaction on solving this problem. Even the Old Vic might have to close.
Task Force 2000 has predicted that a civil emergency can be averted only by spending £50,000 million. It estimates that £12 billion of that would be for public services. Even the Government admit that £3 billion-worth of public spending will be required.

Mr. David Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to what almost certainly will happen in less than two years' time. Is he aware that I have a Bill before the House called the Millennium Conformity Bill, which is due for Second Reading on 3 July? It would enable us to avoid many of the problems that he has highlighted. The Government have a last chance if they support the Bill and recognise that they have a responsibility to ensure that we avoid the problems to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, to whom much credit is due for raising the issue earlier than many other people. I pay tribute to his campaign. We wish his Bill well on 3 July and shall be interested in the Government's reaction.
The Prime Minister has admitted that an extra £3 billion will be necessary in the public sector before 31 December 1999. He has also admitted that there is a shortage of 50,000 people with IT skills, and especially bug skills. He has announced the training of 20,000 bug busters, but that is 30,000 people short. It is like bridge builders deciding to construct only 40 per cent. of a bridge. It is nonsense. If there is a shortage of 50,000 bug busters, we should ensure that that number is trained.
We are not working to a movable deadline and we do not have the luxury of continuing this essential work for 27 months into the millennium, because that is what a shortage of 50,000 bug busters means. The resources are a joke. Although the Prime Minister has said that an extra £3 billion will be needed in the public sector, he has announced the switching of £70 million of technology money to the bug problem. Some of that will be spent on training the 20,000 bug busters and on increasing the Action 2000 budget to £17 million. That £70 million is less than 2.5 per cent. of the money that is needed to sort out the problem. The Prime Minister stated:
Your supply chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
There seems to be a few weak links in the Government on the problem.
Many companies are getting on with the job. United Utilities, which serves my constituency, has assured me that it will be millennium compliant by the end of this year, and Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS trust says that it will be ready by March 1999. However, the Audit Commission report clearly states that trusts and local authorities are well short of the commission's benchmarks. The report states that there is still time, but it concedes that there needs to be prioritisation. The country needs to know now the progress of each local authority and trust in tackling the millennium bug problem. The best way to do that is to publish all the information, perhaps in some sort of league table, so that people know what is going on.
In his millennium bug speech, the Prime Minister said:
We want to encourage open scrutiny and feedback.
That must be right, but it will happen only if the public have all the facts.
Task Force 2000 refers to confused lines of responsibility. Action 2000, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is taking the issue seriously, the President of the Board of Trade and committees have called for a clear line of responsibility. The Chancellor of the Duchy should take full control and should feed information straight to the Prime Minister on this issue. We are asking chief executives in industry to take control and we should be prepared to do that too. There should be a one-stop shop to tackle the millennium bug.
People have a right to know about fresh action that the Government will take in the light of today's shocking report. Excuses will no longer do. Half-measures would be an improvement on what has happened so far, but they would be totally inadequate. Enormous sums will be needed, but from where will they come? A Library paper on the millennium bug states that public bodies are receiving
no additional funding and are expected to meet the costs of the millennium bug from existing budgets.
Does the Chancellor of the Duchy expect us to believe that that is at all possible, given all the other pressures on local authorities and health authorities? Where will they find the extra money? Will it have to be diverted from services and from care functions?
The Government seem to think more about their millennium dome than about the millennium bug. Spending large sums on the one is a folly: spending so little on the other is a disaster. The Government have a responsibility to get a grip on the problem, and the Minister must tell the country what they intend to do.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on obtaining the debate and on his prescience on realising that the Audit Commission report was published today. I agree 100 per cent. that we must face the problem of the millennium bug, but there is no point in panicking. It is a problem not just for this country, but for the world. The hon. Gentleman was right to welcome the first-rate report by the Audit Commission. It is called "A Stitch in Time" and in a sense that says it all. It makes the observations to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded and it concludes:
The problems are not insurmountable but urgent action does need to be taken.
I agree.
The report is a management paper. It is a mantra, a handbook that local authorities and the national health service can use to try to make sure that they meet the problem when it arrives. I hope that every senior manager in the NHS and in local government reads it, because it is a major step forward. The warnings are chilling and we cannot run away from them. I intend to publicise the report and to tell local authorities and NHS trusts that they must address the problem with much more urgency.
The Audit Commission report makes it clear that it is the responsibility of chief executives and senior officers in local government and NHS trusts to address the issue. Chillingly, it also says that organisations or managers may be legally liable for any injuries or losses that are caused by failures in the system. There is no hiding place for anyone who tries to run away from tackling the problem.
All hon. Members have a responsibility to make sure that their constituents, the people to whom we are responsible, have proper services on 1 January 2000. I hope that all hon. Members will contact their local health trusts, health authorities and local authorities to make sure that they are tackling the problem seriously and that they have a copy of the report. It is important for all of us to play our part.
Not surprisingly, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley alleged that the Government had been guilty of inaction. I refute that, but I do not want to be too heavy on the point because, when we took over about 13 months ago, we were 13 months further away from the problem. It is now more of a problem than it was 13 months ago. Apart from one or two honourable exceptions, a few of whom are in the Chamber, few people in the Conservative Government and only one former Minister, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), took much interest in the issue. When I inherited it and received from the National Audit Office in May last year the first report, which was called "Managing the Millennium Threat", I was appalled by what little had been done and immediately set about trying to tackle the issue.
What have the Government done to counter the millennium bug threat? First, we have set up two Cabinet Committees to drive forward action across the public and private sectors. Even if we are successful in tackling the problem in the public sector, that on its own is not enough because, in a complex society such as ours, the private and public sectors are interwoven to such an extent that, if one fails, both will fail. We think immediately of hospitals, which are very much in our minds. We think immediately of the emergency services and ask whether

the ambulances will continue to run; that is a public service, but one usually calls for an ambulance by telephone, which calls into question one's confidence that the private telephone services can meet the need to make emergency calls. I am confident that they can, because British Telecom is ahead of the game in that respect, but it is a good example of the interrelationship between the public and the private sectors. That is why we have set up the Cabinet Committees to ensure not only that there are contingency plans for emergencies, but that across the sphere of social activity, both private and public, there is an enmeshing of action and that problems are being solved.

Dr. Michael Clark: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when he appeared before the Select Committee on Science and Technology a few months ago, he gave the Committee a statement of confidence that all the emergency services would have their priorities right by 2000. In the intervening months, has his confidence increased or decreased?

Dr. Clark: My confidence has increased. I have had reports from the ambulance services in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland telling me that they have looked at their procedures and are continuing to do so, which has reassured me considerably.
I do not want to sound complacent, but I am much happier about central Government than about the public sector generally. I was encouraged by the official report published in May this year by the National Audit Office, which examined one of the most difficult central Government Departments—the Department of Social Security. The report's summary stated:
The Department's approach to project management complies with the best practice recommended by CCTA.
I am not saying that we have got everything right, but we have a firmer grip on the issue where it affects central Government. That effort has been helped by my quarterly reports to the House and, even more so, by our having put on the internet and laden the Library of the House of Commons with the detailed plans, updated every three months, of every central Government Department. One of the key points in the Audit Commission report is that openness and transparency are among the cardinal weapons with which we can fight the problem, as is the extension of best practice.
In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £100 million for high-technology skills. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley acknowledges, £30 million of that is designated for use in training the 20,000 bug busters—the hon. Gentleman may deride that number, but that is 20,000 more than were planned by the previous Government. I emphasise that, when we took over, the cupboard was almost bare of ways to tackle the problem. We have also increased the Action 2000 budget to £17 million.
The last time I spoke on this subject in the House was 10 days ago, when I presented the information I had gathered in the most recent quarterly review of progress. I lay great store in reporting to the House of Commons, because it is one way in which we can monitor the progress achieved and decide whether we need to change direction or the speed with which we work. Since 8 June, I have written to all Ministers setting out the problems


revealed by the most recent survey in respect of their Department and reminding them that there is no room for complacency. I have stressed again the problem of embedded chips and asked all Departments and agencies to continue to press suppliers for information about product compliance, because that is a serious issue.
I took up an assertion made during my last statement to the House, which was that even Microsoft's Windows 95 was not compliant. We are seeking greater clarification, but the answer I received was that it depends on how the system was established: if it was set up with two digits, as opposed to four digits, it is not compliant. I am pursuing the matter with Microsoft, but it is an example of how hon. Members have helped us in our efforts to tackle the problem.
I am also following up individual cases of slippage and insufficient testing strategies. We are monitoring closely what Departments are doing in respect of risk assessment and business continuity. In addition, I am encouraging the wider public sector to make information about their year 2000 programmes available in the same way that I have made available central Government information.

Mr. White: On the question of risk assessment, does the Minister accept that many public services will be unable to do everything and that what is important is that they do the things that matter, while remaining aware of what they have left undone? What is critical is that they get high-risk systems and embedded chips sorted out.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. "A Stitch in Time" makes the point clearly that the real issue is not the technical aspects of the problem, but the breadth of the problem. Everyone who is informed on this subject agrees that we will not be able to do everything that can be done, which is why we need to set priorities. That is another message from the document, which gives me another opportunity to extol its virtues—it is full of good common sense.
All of us in the House have to use our influence and authority. A lot of responsibility is being delegated and a lot of power is being handed down to the working level, but it would be a great step forward if we could have the same openness in the wider public sector that we have in respect of central Government Departments. I would encourage hon. Members to urge the wider public sector to be more open and to give us more information.

Mr. Evans: To return to my earlier point, will the Chancellor publish the full details which have been accumulated? Will he tell my constituents where their

local authorities and health trusts will find the extra money necessary to bring them up to the level at which they can test and, if necessary, repair any damage that may be done to their equipment?

Dr. Clark: We have already put on the internet and in the Library all the information that we have received from the wider public sector. I am not yet satisfied that I have enough information, but the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that this is our first run. When we had a go at central Government Departments, they knew how to respond to our efforts and each survey brought us more of the sort of information that we needed. I hope to make that sort of progress in the wider public sector.
On finance, we, like the previous Government, made it clear to health authorities, local authorities and all public sector bodies that the problem had to be addressed. We assured them that the problem existed and insisted that they made sure that their budgets took account of it, so there is no reason why extra money should be needed. We estimate the central Government costs at about £402 million. We have received conflicting figures for the national health service: the latest figure, quoted in "A Stitch in Time", is sightly more than £300 million, but I believe that future estimates will be higher. All the evidence from the private sector is that there will be a gradual, not dramatic, increase.
I have commissioned an infrastructure risk assessment to try to develop our understanding of the risks and vulnerabilities inherent in systems through0out the public and private sectors. I accept that there are gaps in the information that has been provided. We are trying to close those gaps and will continue to do so. I am pleased that we are making progress across the field and that we are working with our fellow Governments in Europe and throughout the world.
We tend to think of this as a domestic problem, but it clearly is not. That is why the Prime Minister raised the issue with the European Union, with the G8 and at the European-Asian conference. It is also why it was raised at the Council of Ministers meeting that I attended about three weeks ago. It was raised by another Government who asked for an exchange of information and best practice among European Governments, and I was asked to take the lead in that. I have sent the information that we have to the respective Ministers to make sure that not only are we doing all that we can to get it right but that other countries are doing the same.
I join the hon. Member for Ribble Valley in complimenting the Audit Commission's document, which is first rate. The warnings are there for the chief executives. The responsibility is theirs. We shall keep the pressure on them, but, at the end of the day, they have to be in charge.

Rare Plants

1 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell: One in eight of the world's plants are facing extinction. That is the conclusion of the World Conservation Union's red list. The list is a first attempt on a global scale to identify all threatened plants. Thirty-three thousand species, representing 12.5 per cent. of the world's known higher plants, are at risk of extinction. Many are of great horticultural beauty, some are medicinal, many are trees, and others are relatives of crop plants that could be of great importance for the sustenance of those crops in the future.
I am not critical of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. On the contrary, I have been impressed by the seriousness of its parliamentary answers and by what it has done to date. I understand from non-Government sources that the British delegation to the Bratislava conference of parties to the convention on biological diversity did well, as Britain did with its chairmanship of the CITES—the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—standing committee.
Like hundreds of thousands of other people, I am concerned about species' disappearance. Judging from the reaction of the British press to the publication of the red list, it seems that many of their readers share those concerns. We therefore owe a debt to Dr. Mark Collins of the conservation unit in Cambridge, to Dr. Kerry Walter and David Ingram and others at the botanical gardens in Edinburgh, and, indeed, to the distinguished staff at Kew for what they have done. The red list is produced in Britain. It is done through a global network of experts, but Britain can take some pride in the fact that it was mostly organised by scientists here.
We should not simply wring our hands. This is a public issue. It is also a window of opportunity, and the purpose of this debate is simply to ask how we can mobilise resources. I have three points to make of which it was sensible to give notice. First, what is happening at home under the biodiversity action plan in the United Kingdom? In particular, what is happening in respect of the Darwin initiative? There is no point in going into detail about any of the 19 species such as the Lundy cabbage, but we should ask what is being done for the relatively few species listed as being at risk in the UK.
Secondly, what is happening Europewide? The Uppsala conference agreed on the need to identify and protect plant sites. Thirdly, in the developing world, the loss of resources is often the indirect, but sometimes the direct, cause of poverty. Let me give just one example. One in three of the dipterocarp trees under threat in south-east Asia underpin the forest economies. A lack of action will simply add to the poverty, as well as damage the environment.
I know that the Government have much to say, so I will sit down at this stage, because it is more important that we hear what they have to say than that I take my full 15 minutes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this important issue. I thank him for his kind remarks about the work of our Department.
The conservation of plants is sometimes overshadowed by concerns about animal species—the so-called "charismatic mega fauna" such as elephants, tigers and whales. As an illustration of that, we currently have five red lists of threatened animal species, but have only just got the first red list of threatened plants. That is despite the fact that more than two thirds of the 35,000 species in which trade is monitored and regulated by CITES—the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—are plants. I am therefore very glad to have the opportunity today warmly to support the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend about the importance of plant conservation, and to outline some of the practical steps which the Government are taking to tackle this essential task.
Like my hon. Friend, I hope that today's debate will stimulate interest in this issue, and help to ensure that the red list receives the recognition and wide attention that it deserves. I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks acknowledging the efforts that the Government have been making in this direction.
As my hon. Friend has said, the list is a Herculean undertaking, which has taken 15 years to complete. I pay tribute to the efforts of the many botanical and conservation scientists who have devoted so much of their time and expertise to this impressive co-operative effort, which was literally worldwide. The picture that it paints is, as my hon. Friend said, a worrying one, with one in eight of the world's plants threatened with extinction.
The red list is, of course, not an end in itself, but a catalyst. What is important now is what the countries whose species it lists and what the international community generally do with it. The list identifies the species under threat. It aims to
serve as a stimulus and a challenge to botanists and conservationists around the world to contribute to knowledge on plants and the threats to them, and to promote increased conservation action.
We need now to think carefully about how the red list can best be translated into co-ordinated practical action.
My hon. Friend raised three particular issues. The first was what we are doing domestically. The red list includes 19 species which are found in the United Kingdom, including the Lundy cabbage, which he mentioned, and the English sandwort. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that species action plans are currently being prepared for 14 of these species, with the aim of ensuring that these precious parts of our natural heritage continue to exist and to flourish in the UK. Of the other five species, we shall, in close consultation with our scientific advisers—the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—be monitoring the English sandwort and the Welsh groundsel.
There are doubts about the taxonomic classification of one of the other UK species, the Little Robin. The Aran mountain ash is a new addition to the red data list, and the Jersey pink is found only on Jersey, which is not covered by the UK biodiversity action plan.
To conserve plants effectively, it is vital to ensure also that the habitats that support them are properly looked after. In the United Kingdom, a large proportion—some three quarters—of our protected network of almost 4,000 sites of special scientific interest support significant communities of plants and have been given SSSI status wholly or partly because of their botanical interest. Moreover, there is in the UK a wide range of other


initiatives that make an invaluable contribution to plant conservation. The initiatives include English Nature's species recovery programmes and the wide-ranging conservation activities undertaken by the voluntary sector, including bodies such as Plantlife and the Botanical Society of the British Isles.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend for replying to this debate—the subject is not his direct responsibility in the Department—and I quite understand why the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), has to be abroad today. However, he is responsible for urban areas. There is an argument for at least considering whether more SSSIs—every small ones—could be established in certain urban areas and in certain circumstances, even in inner cities. Is that being thought about in the Department?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point, about which, in its broader terms, we are much exercised in the Department. Rightly, as part of the Government's planning policies, there is increased emphasis on ensuring that, wherever possible, new housing development in particular is concentrated in urban areas, to relieve pressure on the countryside and to contribute towards regeneration of our cities. However, we are equally concerned that such development should not be at the expense of the quality of the urban environment, and certainly should not involve development of sites that are essential to the maintenance of green spaces, wildlife and playing fields in urban areas.
I cannot answer my hon. Friend's specific question on whether further consideration is being given to designation of more SSSIs in urban areas, for the reason that he has explained to the House—in this debate, I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is abroad today on presidency business. However, I shall raise the matter with her, and ask her to write to my hon. Friend with an answer to his question.
As I said, significant numbers of communities of plants have been given SSSI status wholly or partly because of their botanical interest, and English Nature's species recovery programme and the conservation activities undertaken by the voluntary bodies that I mentioned are very important in conserving flora.
We are concerned also about what the red list reveals about the conservation status of some plant species found in the United Kingdom's dependent territories. About four in 10 of the plant species found on St. Helena, for example, are at risk. We are considering the advice of our statutory advisers—the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—on the findings of the red list, and will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the Government of any UK dependent territory concerned, so that we can assist them in considering the action that should be taken to deal with the threat to their plants.

Mr. Dalyell: It so happens that I have a constituent who has been involved in St. Helena. Representations have been made to the authorities there to be a bit more careful than they have been in recent history about their unique flora.

Mr. Raynsford: I undertake to bring that point to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State,

and to ask her to bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the attention of the authorities in St. Helena—in exactly the same way as the attention of other dependent territories—is drawn to the important issue of preserving rare plant species that may be unique to a particular dependent territory.
The second matter dealt with by my hon. Friend was about what we are doing at the European level. The habitats and species directive lists a large number of plants of Community interest, the conservation status of which requires establishment of special areas of conservation. We and other member states are currently drawing up lists of candidate sites, which, in the UK's case, will be notified shortly to the Commission. The Commission will then assess the overall picture with a view to ensuring that the EU network of sites provides an adequate network of protected areas for the species and habitats listed in the directive.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend mentioned the wider international context, and asked what the UK is doing not only to preserve rare plants but to assist in measures designed to sustain communities that live, often on very limited means, in areas containing some of those rare plants.
The UK has played a leading part in the efforts being made by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to conserve plant species. The CITES scientific committee is currently reviewing the most significant trade plant species to ensure that harvesting from the wild is sustainable. The convention's standing committee recently endorsed a 900 per cent. increase, to £100,137—admittedly from a relatively low base of £10,246—in resources devoted to that process, which is known as the significant trade programme. A United Kingdom representative, from the Royal Botanic Gardens, has been appointed as co-ordinator of the CITES significant trade programme for plants.
The programme's work involves a review of the data on international trade in the species concerned; an analysis of the level of trade in wild and artificially propagated plants; an assessment of the conservation status of the species concerned; and a series of recommendations setting out the action necessary to ensure that trade is sustainable. The United Kingdom has also provided the vice-chairperson of the CITES nomenclature committee, which comprises a group of international experts and has been working on production of standard CITES references for plants.
Through the Royal Botanic Gardens, the United Kingdom has also been particularly involved in preparation of checklists for orchids, bulbs and cacti. The UK has also been closely involved in the work of the carnivorous plant specialist group of the species survival commission of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The group has been reviewing the conservation status of carnivorous plants, and developing a carnivorous plant action plan.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remarks about our role in the biodiversity convention. Biodiversity has been one of the key issues under our EU presidency. The EU biodiversity strategy has been adopted by the Council, and is a good example of how a region can work to integrate biodiversity into all areas. At the Bratislava conference, we led as presidency a successful EU participation that helped to shape many final outcomes.


Useful progress was made on assessment and monitoring of biodiversity. There was for the first time a constructive debate on the third objective of the convention—the sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources.
We also support developing countries' efforts to implement the convention. My hon. Friend mentioned the Darwin initiative, which he will know is funded by my Department. The initiative supports collaboration between UK biodiversity institutions and developing country partners, to help the latter implement the convention. In six years, the initiative has funded 172 projects, involving more than 70 British institutions and with links to more than 70 countries.
The initiative's projects so far have involved not only the major British biodiversity institutions—such as the natural history museum and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew—but many universities, research institutes and other educational bodies. The projects include one to develop management plans for three protected areas of the Andaman Islands, whose rainforests and mangroves are of global significance because of their high diversity and uniqueness.

Mr. Dalyell: It is impossible to exaggerate the problems of protecting the mangroves. If the mangroves go, so will the sea walls, and that could have terrible effects on the countries concerned, let alone the flora and fauna.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the interrelationship between programmes for the protection of flora and the sustainability of the local environment, and that is very much at the heart of the Government's philosophy. The rainforests and mangroves are of global significance because of their high diversity and uniqueness, and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, they contribute to the sustainability and the safety of the Andaman Islands.
Another project being undertaken under the Darwin initiative by the Royal Botanic Gardens will aim to conserve ethnobotanical information and seeds from medicinal plants growing in arid and semi-arid areas of Tunisia and assess their economic potential. It will involve training students from different research institutes and universities in Tunisia in horticultural, conservation and phytochemical techniques. I should add, tongue in cheek, that we might even offer a little assistance on football techniques. This week, it is impossible to avoid such a reference.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend referred to football, so may I turn to Brazil, where I first became deeply interested in problems of ethnodiversity because of Dr. Darrell Posey, now at Oxford? What are we doing in respect of the links that Kew has with the Amazon, as I understand that they need further modest funding?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, as I do not normally cover such matters, I shall have to seek advice. However, I undertake to write to him about the steps being taken to assist in Brazil.
I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about the link between poverty and the conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity is particularly important for the alleviation of poverty, because it contributes to stable ecosystems and

provides more options for poor people whose livelihoods are often directly based on natural resources. Biodiversity produces species and varieties which can adapt to different circumstances, such as some varieties of crop that are drought or pest-resistant.
It is important to see people as part of the solution, not the problem. In many areas, the diverse range of species has been protected and developed by local people. One thinks, for example, of indigenous crop varieties. However, in certain circumstances, meeting immediate needs may drive people to resource depletion. The Government are working to prevent that, through projects that tackle poverty and biodiversity together.
Our key aims are to improve poor people's livelihoods through sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity; to protect those livelihoods by preventing biodiversity loss which can increase vulnerability and have disproportionate effects on the poor, and to provide alternatives for people who would otherwise be forced to over-exploit biological resources. In practice, it means supporting projects that stimulate the sustainable use and management of resources. The Government have supported a number of projects, including the Mount Cameroon project, which, by involving local expertise as well as the Government and industry, has produced practical systems for the sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products. We have also funded the World Wide Fund for Nature "People and Plants" project, which seeks to resolve conflicts between the conservation and over-exploitation of plant resources, and to enhance their value to local people.
Projects can also help to conserve genetic resources that are important for the future. For example, a project in east Africa helped to increase bean production by improving disease management while maintaining local bean varieties. Finally, they can promote benefit sharing by funding botanic gardens and similar institutions in developed and developing countries, and defining a common policy for the fair exchange of genetic resources.

Mr. Dalyell: May I put in a plea for a little more money to be made available to welcome incoming students to the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh, Kew and other institutions? The most cost-effective way that we can help some countries is by enabling their students to come here to be trained.

Mr. Raynsford: I undertake to make sure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), and to the Department for International Development, as they both have a direct interest in the matter. We have been seeking through a variety of ways to help that interrelationship, and encourage the development of local capacity. In Kenya, for example, we have strengthened the capacity to support sustainable management of plant biodiversity through assistance to the national museum of Kenya. We have also supported a plant conservation and propagation unit to ensure preservation of indigenous crop species.
To come back to where we started today's debate, the IUCN's work in producing its red lists is of crucial importance to international efforts to conserve wildlife species. In recognition of this, my Department, jointly with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal


Botanic Gardens, has recently provided a funding package of £125,000 to assist in the setting up of an IUCN species conservation centre in Cambridge. The centre will include a scientist who will be responsible for organising the red list programme, including liaising with scientific experts worldwide, organising workshops, and assisting with database management.

Mr. Dalyell: Does that mean that it will be updated?

Mr. Raynsford: The whole purpose is that the red list should not be static, but constantly evolving in response to known information which has to be gleaned from all over the world. It was a Herculean task to establish the red list in the first place, and it is vital that it is kept up to date and linkages maintained to ensure that.
Finally, I am delighted to be able to announce today that my Department will be providing a contribution of £10,000 to a succulent plants project being undertaken by the world conservation monitoring centre in Cambridge. It involves a review of the conservation status and international conservation measures for succulent plants, which will build on the work done by the WCMC and others for the red data book. The survey will look at succulent plants which are threatened with extinction in the wild, and will provide the basis for an assessment of additional CITES measures necessary to protect these species.

Mr. Dalyell: I am extremely pleased—as many who work in the field will be—with the serious and constructive nature of my hon. Friend's response. Successive British Governments—this is not a party matter—and civil servants should be applauded for their serious work that has set an example in the European Community. Perhaps such work will increase British influence in the Community, and I wish the civil servants, scientists and politicians involved well.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, which I entirely endorse. I shall ensure that they are conveyed to all responsible. As he rightly emphasises, it is not a party matter, but an example of government at its best, taking a lead and setting an example in the various agencies through which we can exercise influence in Europe and in the wider international context.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government fully share his concern about the threat facing many of our plant species. We have been and will continue to be fully and actively involved in national, European and international efforts to conserve this vital component of our planet's natural resources.

Food Safety Act

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to have the opportunity to initiate this debate, but I am disappointed that it is necessary. Unusually, not one but two Ministers are on the Treasury Bench this afternoon. I appreciate their attendance and I hope that the debate will help them and the House generally.
I believe that the enforcement procedure under the Food Safety Act 1990 is not working as well as it should. Hon. Members will know that the Government's White Paper on the Food Standards Agency was published in January. Consultation has proceeded since then and legislation will follow in due course. As food spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, I am delighted to support that initiative and look forward to the discussions that will take place in the House. However, at present there is a hiatus, and I believe that the current regime is patently inadequate and lacks equity. It could be argued that we would not be contemplating major legislation if the present situation were wholly satisfactory.
In the interim period, the Food Safety Act 1990 clearly involves a huge amount of red tape. There are unnecessary deaths on the one hand and the closure of flourishing businesses on the other. I am convinced—I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree—that we are not finding the right solutions to current problems. To a large extent, it is a question of enforcement rather than the statute itself. It is my belief—I hope that Ministers share it—that it is essential to learn the lessons of the past and the present in order to ensure that the Food Standards Agency focuses on the prevention of public health problems and scares and does not act solely as a firefighter, responding after incidents occur.
I found an extremely useful source of information for this debate, which also gave a general analysis of the inadequacies of bureaucracy. It is a book by Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, both of whom have studied issues of this sort for many years, which was published in 1995. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to the book, which is entitled, "The Mad Officials—how the bureaucrats are strangling Britain". It has the added merit, when it comes to bedtime reading, of containing illustrations by the inimitable Willie Rushton, and I strongly recommend it to Ministers. It is a classic and is extremely helpful in identifying some of the problems with which I hope that they are concerned. It certainly identifies the web of red tape with which I have no doubt that their red boxes are filled every night. The book states:
One of the more unpleasant by-products of the Environmental Health Officer's 'hygiene blitz' was how local papers could be drawn into publicising their activities in a way which might do immense damage to particular businesses—often as it turned out, without justification.
Today, I shall refer to the case of Duckett's cheese. I have been in close contact with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber—I hope that he will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and contribute to the debate—and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who is not able to be here but who has been most helpful in marshalling the argument. I think that I speak for us all when I stress that we do not seek


to minimise the need to protect public health or deal with food poisoning incidents. However, the case of Duckett's cheese shows that the "hygiene police"—as I call them—must be sure that their facts are accurate because their actions result in individual businesses being submerged by the tide of safety procedures and destroyed overnight.
In this case, Duckett's cheese of Somerset was supplied to a processing company called Eastside Cheese Company in Tandridge, Surrey, which is run by Mr. James Aldridge. Mr. Aldridge processes specialist cheese for a limited market and obtains a substantial quantity of cheese from Mr. Christopher Duckett of Wedmore in Somerset, in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. On 4 and 8 May, supplies of Wedmore and Tornegus cheeses, made by Mr. Duckett, were sent to the Public Health Laboratory Service for sampling. Mr. Aldridge was told that the samples proved to be entirely negative so far as E. coli 0157 was concerned—he has never received any results to the contrary, so he must assume that that result stands. However, when one consumer of the cheese was found by a Bristol hospital to have an illness apparently caused by E. coli 0157 bacteria, the position changed abruptly.
On 8 May, a category A food hazard warning was issued by the Department of Health. Local authorities were required to ensure that all stocks of cheese originating from Duckett were held by wholesalers and retailers and were required to obtain samples of such cheeses in their areas for testing by the PHLS. No results have been supplied on the total number of samples tested or on any positive outcomes. Mr. Aldridge had voluntarily retained his stock at that stage, but he was told unofficially that he should threaten to sell some cheese in order to invoke section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990. This he did so that he could be compensated.
The original detention order made by Tandridge council on 19 May under section 9 of the Act put a stop to all sales of Duckett's cheese from Mr. Aldridge's premises, where it is sent for smoking and maturing. That occurred despite the fact that samples showed no contamination by E. coli. The environmental health officers sampled only three batches, and it is against the law to ask for cheese to be condemned unless every batch has been sampled. Mr. Aldridge commissioned an independent analysis of his entire stock, which produced 100 per cent. negative results. However, the following day, the Minister for Public Health signed the emergency control order to come into effect on 21 May 1998 under section 13 of the Food Safety Act 1990. That effectively put both Duckett's and Mr. Aldridge out of business. Meanwhile, the one alleged sufferer of E. coli in Somerset has fully recovered.
Lest it be thought that I am somehow contributing to a right-wing plot, I shall quote from the New Statesman, which is the bible of new Labour. On 29 May 1998, it picked up on a crucial point and said:
The Department of Health's 20 May press release makes a cryptic bullet point remark dismissing the milk. 'No screening of raw milk and no HACCP in operation. Hence lack of confidennce…& What? The Duckett's milk is screened by Milk Marque, which has stringent procedures, and the Ducketts were operating under HACCP, a fancy acronym for a hygiene regime. They couldn't have been in business if they weren't. After the recent scare, theirs is probably the cleanest dairy in the land.
At a meeting with Mr. Aldridge, his solicitor and Dr. Richard North on 5 June, an official apparently admitted that, when the order was issued under section 13 of the Food Safety Act, there was no public health risk.

Under section 4(2) of the Act, the "Minister" who signed the order had to be either the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Health. No junior Minister can sign that order. The order should have been signed by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), as the Secretary of State for Health, or by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The legality of the order is therefore rightly questioned. This matter may be the subject of a judicial review, so obviously I cannot go any further into the legal position. The Act is quite clear, however, and there are concerns that the Department of Health has acted illegally.
In the meantime, the cost to the taxpayer continues to mount. Mr. Aldridge, together with the wholesalers and retailers whom he supplies, will have to be compensated for loss of business. Mr. Aldridge's business, which was recently valued at £200,000, is now worth nothing. Costs therefore include £100,000 for the cheeses, £200,000 for business, as well as possible claim for compensation by numerous others, and an estimated legal bill of another £200,000 to £500,000 so far.
Effectively, Ministers and their accomplices have reversed the burden of proof. Of course, this is not the only time that that has happened. Cheese makers are being asked the impossible. They cannot prove that food is always fit; they can say only that they have been unable to detect any strain of E. coli.
There is also the question of natural justice. It cannot be right that authorities take away a person's business for no good reason and without compensation. By inserting Duckett's cheese by name as unfit in the emergency control order, the Department of Health was able to remove the company's right to compensation. That is nifty work, but it is not to the credit of Her Majesty's Government.
This and many other cases show that the nanny state did not begin on 2 May 1997. The legislation to which I am referring was passed in 1990. Indeed, it could be said that, if ever there were a nanny Government, they were the Government of Nanny Thatcher, who always knew best. Significantly, the Booker-North book was published after 15 years of Conservative government. Indeed, it contains the very sad but similar saga of a cheese maker in Pembrokeshire in 1993. Fortunately, although the connotations were similar, the consequences were not nearly as financially calamitous.
If we are to have a Food Standards Agency, let us for goodness' sake ensure the necessary expertise and experience behind it so that it can work efficiently and with equity. It must not be dominated by the food faddists at the Department of Health. It must be accountable to an independent Select Committee along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee.
It is remarkable that, so far, so many such incidents have been targeted on small producers. It seems incredible that shortfalls and failures never occur in larger manufacturers or processing plants. In 1997, there were 1,087 cases of E. coli. Fourteen businesses are in jeopardy over the one case to which I am referring. Simple arithmetic tells us that 15,218 businesses a year could be affected. If we are to go down the route of over-zealous, over-bureaucratic inspection by people who lack experience and expertise, there could be a problem of adequate food supply.


I have three specific questions for the Minister on this latest bitter experience. First, is she satisfied that the procedure initiated in the Duckett case—for the first time in eight years, as the Government have admitted—is really appropriate? Secondly, given that farmers are compensated for BSE and tuberculosis breakdowns in cattle, how can she justify the unsatisfactory compensation arrangements for food? Is there one law for cows and quite another for their products? Thirdly, how can we ensure that the mistakes of the recent past—inadequately trained, inadequately resourced and inadequately experienced sledgehammers trying to crack small-scale nuts—are not perpetuated in the new Food Standards Agency regime?
I return to the New Statesman, which puts words in Ministers' mouths—but perfectly justifiably. It said:
We are not only destroying a classic English cheese—we are bragging about it.
The previous debate concerned endangered species. At the end of it, the Minister referred at some length to a particular succulent endangered species that he sought to protect. I suggest that, in debating local and regional specialist foods, we are on the same subject.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has the Minister's permission to make his remarks.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have been in contact with the hon. Member for North Cornwall. I apologise for not specifically requesting—

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I am content for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the Minister, who knows my interest in this subject.
Mr. Duckett is my constituent. I have known him for 15 years. He is a highly respected Somerset farmer and fully responsible for the safety of the food that he produces. He is aware of the dangers of food poisoning and wishes to co-operate with the authorities in every way. He was therefore shocked, as I was, by the unprecedented issuing of the emergency control order; it was the first ever issued under the Food Safety Act 1990. It was issued when Mr. Duckett was already fully complying with the requests and instructions of local environmental health officers.
We are not talking about an epidemic. There was a single reported case of food poisoning connected with the cheese: in a 12-year-old boy, who happily made a full recovery. All the stocks of the cheese were stalled and other sensible measures were already in place. I join the hon. Member for North Cornwall in asking the Minister to justify her Department's use of the emergency order, given that the detention of food notices issued by local authorities were apparently already working with the full co-operation of Mr. Duckett and his customers.
I understand that compensation might be payable under local authority orders if batches of the cheese are subsequently found not to be contaminated and could be released to customers. Will Mr. Duckett be eligible for any compensation that may be made payable as a result of the order to which he and his customers are subject?
Lastly, and in a way most importantly, Mr. Duckett has had his livelihood wiped out. He has no income, even though the cows from which he obtains the milk and his premises have been declared safe. Although the contamination was never adequately explained, all possible measures have been taken. Effectively, he has been ruined. When will the emergency order be lifted? Apparently, local environmental health officers are content. When will the Minister's Department be content, so that my constituent can get back to earning his living?

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to deal with the questions that have been raised, as an important part of the Government's wider health policy.
Food poisoning causes illness in increasing numbers of people every year. In 1997, there were more than 100,000 notifications, and many more go unreported. That is why food safety controls must be in place at every stage of the food chain—from plough to plate. Food businesses, too, must adopt preventive measures against the contamination of food. Any case of E. coli must be dealt with, with the utmost care.
In response to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), I would argue that we have not so far seen any further cases of E. coli as a result of the outbreak to which we are referring precisely because of the preventive action that was taken.
The risks of infection have recently been demonstrated all too tragically by the emergence of new strains of the bacterium E. coli. We know that children, elderly people and other vulnerable groups are especially susceptible to that, and that some develop what is known as HUS—a severe kidney problem, now believed to be the commonest cause of acute renal failure in children in the United Kingdom. I am sure that I do not have to remind the House that the 1996 outbreak of E. coli 0157 food poisoning in Lanarkshire claimed the lives of 21 people. This is not a matter that we can treat lightly.
The Government's approach to the implementation of legislation in such circumstances is that sensible, risk-related action is the most effective. That includes a wide range of measures, including education for small businesses that helps them to comply with the law. We are encouraging local authorities to adopt the enforcement concordat, which reflects precisely the principles that I believe to be important for good enforcement—those of openness, consistency and a proportionate approach to problems.
Those principles will also apply to the actions of the Food Standards Agency. Everything that the agency does will be geared to improving food safety and protecting public health by arrangements at both national and local


level, and by encouraging individuals, through better public education, to take what responsibility they can for improving their health.
As a result of our wider approach, formal enforcement measures, such as improvement notices or emergency prohibition notices, are used relatively infrequently. In 1996, one third of a million food establishments were visited, but only just over 100 prohibition orders were issued. Local action is the first port of call, but for serious or widespread problems it may need to be complemented by Government action.
That is why I recently signed the order under section 13 of the Food Safety Act 1990, the focus of today's discussion. That section empowers the Secretary of State to make an emergency control order to prohibit commercial operations with respect to food, if he is satisfied that the carrying out of those commercial operations
involves or may involve imminent risk of injury to health".
Of course we recognise that an emergency control order issued under section 13 may have a major impact on food businesses affected by it—a matter that we do not regard lightly. That is why the decision to sign such an order is a difficult one. Parliament clearly included that provision in the Food Safety Act for the purpose of protecting public health. The key principle underpinning any such action by the Government is that we must be satisfied that any commercial operation in respect of the food in question
involves or may involve imminent risk of injury to health".
A judgment has to be made as to the risks. That is not always easy, but I believe that our response in the case in question was proportionate to those risks. There is no doubt that, whatever decision we take—to act or not to act—will be the subject of scrutiny, debate and controversy, both politically and in the country at large. If we opt to make an emergency control order, those affected by it have, rightly, the right of every citizen to subject that decision to legal test under the process of judicial review.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall will understand that, because the order is now the subject of legal action, my comments must be limited. None the less, it is important to place on the record the sequence of events leading to the making of the order.
A 12-year-old boy developed not a minor tummy upset but renal failure, was put on dialysis and was found to have an E. coli 0157 infection. Investigations showed that he had eaten cheese containing E. coli 0157. Other cheeses from the same producer were also found to be contaminated. Altogether, 10 samples out of 200 were found to contain E. coli 0157. I understand that full details of all the samples taken by the Department were provided to Mr. Aldridge and his advisers at a meeting on 5 June. Cheeses containing the organism had been produced on several different days and were found in several different outlets.
Food hazard warnings were issued advising local authorities of the action that they should take to ensure that none of that cheese reached the public. Despite action at local level, it subsequently became apparent that potentially contaminated cheese was still available at retail outlets. Furthermore, there were also signs that voluntary agreements not to release the cheeses were breaking down.
I was therefore satisfied that commercial operations in respect of those cheeses involved, or may have involved, an imminent risk of injury to health, and that the emergency control order was the most appropriate way of dealing with the situation. A widely distributed food had been found to be contaminated with E. coli 0157, an organism likely to cause serious illness or even death.
A further difficulty, as always in dealing with cases of pathogen contamination, was that microbiological testing could not provide a guarantee that any batch was safe, as organisms in food are not uniformly distributed. Infection by E. coli 0157—one of the most dangerous strains of E. coli, and the one implicated in that case—can occur as a result of ingesting a very small number of organisms. Eating those cheeses was thus akin to playing Russian roulette; some of them were contaminated, but it was not clear which.
The order has promoted swift, firm and consistent action across the country, and by complementing local action with a national measure, has aimed to ensure that the necessary controls are effectively implemented. As a result, no one else has been put at risk, and so far we can say that the possibility of an outbreak such as the one in Lanarkshire has been avoided.

Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jowell: I should like to make a little more progress; then I will.
I remind the House of the fundamental reason for the provision of the powers in the Food Safety Act—to protect the public and to save lives. Let us not be in any doubt about that priority. We always use those powers proportionately, and not, as those who in many cases irresponsibly parody such action would say, as part of an anti-business crusade.

Mr. Tyler: If the Minister cannot deal with the question of compensation here and now, will she please consider carefully the way in which the use of that particular procedure and that particular order would seem to have foreclosed the issue and precluded adequate compensation? That is a major issue, as things stand.

Ms Jowell: I can answer that question in the context of the law, which is that the cheese producer in this case accepted that the food was unfit by surrendering it. I should like to make it clear that the producer has co-operated at every stage with the efforts made to contain the risks posed by the outbreak. The provisions of section 9 of the Food Safety Act mean that compensation is an issue only if the owner of the food challenges the basis for action.
We have always aimed to use the powers proportionately. Looking to the future, as the right hon. Member for Wells invited us to do, I make it clear to the House that we are working closely with the Specialist Cheesemakers Association to help to get the cheese producer back into production. I should also like to inform the House that the child who was so ill as a result of the E. coli incident is, we understand, recovering.


When we are satisfied that it is safe to do so, we shall lift the section 13 order, and the cheese producer will be able to continue production of his cheese. I am determined that, when we reach that point, we shall lift the order with the same alacrity with which we introduced it. It is easy

to dismiss the significance of one case. We have not had an epidemic—but that is because we took the right proportionate action for the sake of public health.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Western Education and Library Board

Mr. William Ross: What monitoring is being carried out by her Department to determine the impact of measures put in place by the Western education and library board to reduce the debt arising from the overspend by that board. [44741]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): The Department is monitoring the action taken by the board to ensure that it complies with the approved spending plans. The phased repayment of the advance to the Western education and library board to meet its over-commitment in 1997–98 reduced its block grant for 1998–99 by 0.39 per cent. My Department has been in very close touch with the Western board since the discovery of the very substantial overspend. There have also been investigations by Coopers and Lybrand into the effectiveness of the revised financial control systems that have been put in place. We shall keep in close touch.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that the clawback being applied across educational establishments in the Western education and library board area involves Limavady college of further education, which was receiving only 87 per cent. of the average funding when the overspend occurred? Given that the funding is still below the average level, the clawback is bound to have a severe effect on that college and others. Is that not adding insult to injury? Will the Minister do something to relieve the situation which one can see developing day by day?

Mr. Worthington: We are doing all we can to limit the impact of the overspend by the Western education and library board. Obviously, I cannot redirect resources from other parts of Northern Ireland or from other boards that did not incur the overspend. The repayment has been phased over four years, which means that the cut this year is of the order of 0.39 per cent. I am willing to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the college of further education and Limavady grammar school.

New Northern Ireland Assembly

Ms Beverley Hughes: If she will make a statement on arrangements for the first meeting of the Northern Ireland assembly. [44742]

Ms Gisela Stuart: If she will make a statement on the arrangements for the first meeting of the Northern Ireland assembly. [44748]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): Following the outcome of the election on 25 June, and having identified and appointed an initial Presiding Officer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to notify Members that

the first sitting of the shadow assembly will take place in the week beginning 29 June at Castle buildings, Belfast and, from September, at Parliament buildings. Upon full transfer of power, the assembly will determine its own meeting place. I will write to all political parties later this week regarding the business of that first meeting.

Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his informative answer. In the light of the large majority of women voters who supported the agreement and of the role of women generally in bringing us to this point in Northern Ireland, does he hope, as I do, that many more women will take part in the decision-making process by being elected to the Northern Ireland assembly?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course I do. I entirely agree that the assembly elections will provide an excellent and unprecedented opportunity to involve more women in public life in Northern Ireland. Women from all parties played a highly significant role in the talks process. We understand from polling that 75 per cent. of women in Northern Ireland—Catholic and Protestant—voted for the agreement in the referendum. I am pleased to inform the House that just under 50 women from a total of around 300 candidates are standing for next week's assembly elections.

Ms Stuart: The first meeting of the assembly will be a tremendous historic event and a great new beginning for the people of Northern Ireland. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the main objective of the assembly will be to achieve greater integration between all sections of the community and between all ages, and that, in that integration process, particular attention will be paid to the young people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Murphy: The House will agree that the turnout at the referendum was the highest that we could have hoped for—indeed, it was the highest for many decades. Many young people voted for the agreement on the basis that it would provide an opportunity for further integration of all communities and of people of all ages in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to say that, once it has been elected next week, the assembly will give another unprecedented opportunity for that to occur. The way in which voting will take place in the assembly is unique, and will offer an opportunity to bind together those people who, for many centuries, have been bitterly divided.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I think that it is true to say that, if I had been in prison for two years or more, I would have been barred from standing for election to the House of Commons. I accept the Government's policy on prisoner release, but will the Minister think most carefully about who should be barred from sitting in the assembly at Stormont? It may not augur well for the assembly's future if elected representatives have to sit in the Chamber facing those who are guilty of terrorist offences.

Mr. Murphy: It was not the Government who decided these matters, but the agreement, which was forged by all the representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland. Nothing in the agreement says that ex-prisoners cannot be members of the assembly, just as there are no such rules in the House of Commons.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: If a Sunday newspaper article is to be believed, at the first meeting


of the assembly, Sinn Fein-IRA elected Members will be accompanied by armed bodyguards, whose weapons will have been issued as personal protection by the Secretary of State. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true?

Mr. Murphy: As far as I am aware, it is untrue.

Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Does he agree that there is no room for private armies in a free, open and democratic society, and that, if politicians in Northern Ireland or elsewhere felt that they needed protection, they would have only to contact our security services to receive the best protection in the world?

Mr.Murphy: Yes, of course they would—I think that everyone accepts that. I think that everyone also accepts that the agreement was based on the understanding that violence would no longer be part of a democratic society in Northern Ireland—to that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Victims of Violence

Mrs. Joan Humble: What steps are being taken to help the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [44743]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, the Northern Ireland victims commissioner, published his report "We Will Remember Them" on 13 May 1998—his recommendations have been widely welcomed. As Minister with responsibility for victims, I am developing proposals to provide greater recognition for, and assistance to, the victims of 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland. I hope to make further announcements soon on taking forward the recommendations.

Mrs. Humble: Given the recent proposals on the release of prisoners and the impact that that will have on victims and their families, does my hon. Friend have plans in the immediate future to develop help and support for those victims, who have suffered dreadfully because of the violence in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Later this evening, we shall continue consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, which deals with the early release of prisoners provided that certain conditions are met—I shall be moving an amendment on that issue.
We believe that if victims so choose, they should have some knowledge of the possible release of the people who may have perpetrated acts of violence or other crimes against them. Of course, the problem is much more complicated and difficult than that, but we hope that the legislation will take account of all the complexities involved.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is the Minister with responsibility for victims and that he is looking into the interests of victims. Does he believe that it will help victims of violence when they know that the people who murdered their husbands,

recently kneecapped their sons, intimidated their families and destroyed their businesses, or whatever it might have been, are still at large—in fact, have been released from prison—and still have the capability to perpetrate those crimes? They still have their weapons and explosives and, as yet, there has been no commitment to decommissioning from any major terrorist organisation.

Mr. Ingram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware that 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted, overwhelmingly, for the agreement. If it can be allowed to be fully implemented, hopefully we shall be able to avoid the grief and pain that have sat upon the people of Northern Ireland for the past 30 years. It is better that we begin to look forward, as well as dealing with the issues relating to victims that we have to deal with and for which I now have responsibility.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that personal victims of violence must be the first priority? However, will he also join me in condemning the sectarian arson attacks last Monday in Downpatrick, my home town, which obviously had a sectarian intent? Does he share my concern that part of the attack involved an explosive device, which had the attributes of paramilitary involvement? Furthermore, I urge him to ensure that the three businesses involved—both Catholic and Protestant—which were put out of business and the ancient and honourable cricket club, which was completely destroyed, get immediate and urgent aid from the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland agencies in general.

Mr. Ingram: Of course, we all condemn unreservedly any sectarian, paramilitary or terrorist attacks. Within the present climate in Northern Ireland, there is no cause for them to continue and we call on everyone associated with those groups not only to give up their weapons, but to stop carrying out those acts. There are procedures for compensation, and I am sure that the businesses that have suffered will be aware of them and will apply in due course. Their applications will, as usual, be considered sympathetically.

Mr. James Gray: Further to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), does the Minister agree that there must be a firm and unbreakable linkage between the release of prisoners and the decommissioning of weapons?

Mr. Ingram: Of course there is, not only in the agreement, but in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, which we considered on Monday and will be considering later today and tomorrow.

Civic Forum

Maria Eagle: What role the new civic forum will play in Northern Ireland following the referendum result on 22 May. [44744]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): As the agreement states, the civic forum will be a consultative and advisory body on social, economic and cultural issues for the Northern Ireland


assembly. It will have no formal powers, but will aim to influence decision making by promoting and encouraging informed debate.

Maria Eagle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that only nine women were elected to the old Stormont Parliament in 50 years, and that was in a House of 78? Does she agree that, if we are to have peace in Northern Ireland, it is vital that women participate more fully in public life there? Given that only 16 per cent. of candidates for the assembly are women, does she agree that the civic forum will at least provide a stepping stone for women to become much more actively involved in public life in the Province?

Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, I do. As we know, many more women are involved in the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland than in the political process, although there are small numbers of women in most of the parties and I hope that their voices will be heard in the assembly. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland in the upcoming elections to see whether they can make that happen with the 50 women who are standing. I hope that the forum will be a voice for women and for the old and young—in fact for people throughout Northern Ireland—so that we can continue to build a sense of community and working together as the months and years go by.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the possibility of a civic forum, how will it be selected, bearing in mind the fact that European partnership schemes have often failed to deliver what they were set up to do because of the pressures on the business community and others? Those meant that business people could not attend sufficiently often and that other community representatives who were full-timers, could dominate community aspects.

Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman will know that some district partnerships have been very successful, and others less so. Where Churches, business, trade unions and the voluntary sector have worked together, they have helped to build and to further a sense of community. I do not know how the members of the civic forum will be elected. We have consulted widely, have talked to people and have had submissions from some parties. Ultimately, the decision will be up to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the assembly, but we will do all we can to put forward constructive and positive options and to facilitate decision making.

Mr. Roger Stott: My right hon. Friend is replying to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) about the civic forum. I am a member of the British-Irish interparliamentary body, a forum set up a number of years ago. How does my right hon. Friend see our future role, as British parliamentarians and Members of the Dail Eireann try to foster good relationships between the House of Commons and the Dail and to move the peace process forward?

Marjorie Mowlam: I would not be so presumptuous as to tell members of the British-Irish interparliamentary body what their role should be. I am sure that it will

continue to be a positive one, which will be enhanced by working alongside the British-Irish council to further relationships among these islands.

Northern Ireland Agreement

Mr. Andrew George: What representations she has received on the Northern Ireland agreement from individuals and organisations in (a) mainland Britain, (b) Crown dependent territories and (c) Eire. [44745]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I have received a range of representations—mostly supportive of the agreement—wishing the people of Northern Ireland a better future built on the foundations of peace and reconciliation laid by the agreement, and free from the division and misery that marked the previous decades.

Mr. George: I thank the Secretary of State. The agreement says:
A British-Irish Council will be established … to promote a harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands.
As I come from Cornwall, a part of these islands that has its own distinct identity, culture and language, I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State on the progress made towards the essential British-Irish council. If she wishes—rightly—to ensure that the council reflects
the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands",
will she ensure that minority ethnic groups are included on that council to contribute to the celebration of diversity within our nation?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that when the body is set up, it will deal with questions of commonality across different regions in these islands on health, education and transport, which clearly cross the whole of the islands. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's specific interest in the south-west can be fully taken into account.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which to secure support for the Northern Ireland agreement would be to make sure that the House continued with its policy of bipartisanship? Does she also agree that the shadow Secretary of State, who could not be bothered to be in the United Kingdom when the agreement was being negotiated, should at least be able to stop yet another petty internal split in the shadow Cabinet from leading the Conservative party down the dangerous road of possibly breaching that policy?

Marjorie Mowlam: My hon. Friend makes his point strongly. For my part, I should be very disappointed if the bipartisan approach that has served both sides of the House— Government and Opposition—so well were to come to an end. I sincerely hope that it does not, but that is not totally up to me.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware of special provisions in the agreement to allow British citizens living in Northern


Ireland to carry Irish passports. Has she received any representations from persons living in the Irish Republic who want to carry British passports, and will the Government consider granting those who live in the Irish Republic and consider themselves British the right to those passports, to provide equality under the terms of the agreement?

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree that equality under the terms of the agreement is a positive end to aim for. I have received no such applications, but if I did, I would certainly consult the Home Office, which would have a direct interest.

Kate Hoey: Given that the agreement mentioned parity of esteem and equality, has my right hon. Friend received any representations, or does she have any views, on the recent decision of the Gaelic Athletic Association to refuse membership to anyone who has been a member of the security forces? Does she agree that that is a reprehensible step and shows that some people are still not prepared to make that extra effort to bring about peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland?

Marjorie Mowlam: I would like everyone to make that extra effort. As my hon. Friend well knows, the GAA said that it was willing to move, but only if there was clear movement to introduce change in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As usual in Northern Ireland, we have to wait for someone to take the first step. I hope for changes in a number of dimensions, and I agree that it would be good for people to spend more of their leisure time together, but that will be up to the members of the GAA, who will have heard what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. James Cran: Will the Secretary of State confirm that she has received representations to the effect that, of those elected to the Northern Ireland assembly, only those who have renounced violence and fully committed themselves to co-operation with the decommissioning commission will be appointed as Ministers? Does she agree that, if that does not happen, Ministers will exercise executive power with one hand while retaining the means of violence with the other?

Marjorie Mowlam: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Ministers will have to sign a pledge of office, committing them to complete and unequivocal ceasefires and to peaceful, non-violent options. Co-operation with the independent commission is one of four stringent factors that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined in May. These are written into the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill.

Parades

Helen Jones: What steps are being taken to reduce tensions over parades in Northern Ireland. [44746]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 established an independent body, the Parades Commission, with the statutory responsibility of encouraging and facilitating local accommodation on

contentious parades. I welcome the acceptance by the loyal orders of the commission's determination to reroute the tour of the north parade, scheduled for this Friday. Given that acceptance, there can be no excuse whatever for any outbreak of violence this weekend or thereafter.

Helen Jones: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Parades Commission on its work so far and on its decisions which, as the whole House will agree, have been both transparent and fair? Will he do all that he can to ensure that all those involved in parades, both marchers and protesters, reach an accommodation and accept the commission's decisions, so that in future, we may avoid the disorder that has occurred so often in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend makes her point very well. We should always recognise how difficult a task the commission faces. We congratulate it on its efforts to date and wish it well in its future determinations. We all recognise the full impact of any outbreak of violence such as we have witnessed in previous years and of the battle of the marching season, which damages not only the economic health and future well-being of Northern Ireland, but the psychological and physical health of everyone who lives there.

Mr. Phil Willis: In a television interview on 7 April, the transcript of which is fully available, the Chief Constable of the RUC made it clear that, even if the Parades Commission decided against the Orange Order marching down the Garvaghy road, he would allow the march to go through if the Orange Order then amassed the number of people that it had in previous years to force that march through. In that case, what future would the commission have, especially on the sensitive Ormeau road and Drumcree parades?

Mr. Ingram: The Chief Constable does not have the power to overturn the legal determination of the commission, but the police have the power to take whatever action is necessary on the day to preserve life and property. Its determination would still stand, on the basis of its best endeavours to resolve issues in respect of the parade or march that it was considering.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the previous question, if the Parades Commission decided that the Drumcree march should not return to Portadown along the Garvaghy road, but by some different route, would the RUC enforce that decision and ensure that peace reigned throughout the area during that weekend?

Mr. Ingram: The best thing that all of us can do is hope that there is no repetition of what has happened in previous years, whether the march is allowed to go ahead or not. The commission has a very difficult job to do, and it is not for me or for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to prejudge what it will do in respect of any application for the march at Drumcree. The matter rests with the commission, and other powers rest with the Chief Constable to deal with public disorder on the day, should it arise.

Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister agree that the best single action that could be


taken to reduce tension over parades in Northern Ireland would be for the concerned residents group on the Garvaghy road to withdraw its opposition to the march? Will he acknowledge the march's importance to members of the Unionist community? To them, it shows tolerance of their rights and their culture.

Mr. Ingram: I would not want to be accused of lecturing the hon. Gentleman, but the best help that he could give would be to come round behind the Good Friday agreement and give every support to what the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland expressed through the ballot box on 22 May. Clearly, we recognise the rights of those who want to march, and the legal rights of those who may want to protest against that. I hope that things can be done peacefully, through reconciliation, with both sides talking to the Parades Commission to find the best answers, in respect of not only the Drumcree parade, but subsequent parades over the coming months.

Economic Package

Mr. Ross Cranston: What progress is being made on the economic package for Northern Ireland announced in May. [44747]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): An implementation plan has been drawn up and action is being taken on the Chancellor's package. An interdepartmental group has been set up to oversee progress. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will closely monitor the implementation of the package. The initiative has been widely welcomed in Northern Ireland as making a significant contribution to enterprise and investment.

Mr. Cranston: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor will be visiting north America to encourage inward investment, but I believe that small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of the community, not only economically, but socially. Does my hon. Friend agree that the provisions in the Finance Bill on capital allowances are especially valuable?

Mr. Ingram: I welcome the Finance Bill, and I also welcome what the Chancellor announced specifically for Northern Ireland—a unique package of 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances for investment by small and medium-sized firms in plant and machinery. That will give a cash flow boost of £100 million over the next four years, which follows the reduction of small companies corporation tax from 23 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the previous Budget. All of that will help to stimulate a key sector of the Northern Ireland economy.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Given the level of wages in Northern Ireland, in relative terms, what estimate has the Minister made of the number of jobs that would be lost there after the imposition of a minimum wage of £3.60 an hour? Does he support the Chancellor of the Exchequer's wish for a lower rate to be applied to young people in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ingram: As the Minister responsible for the economy in Northern Ireland, I have made representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that he has taken due note of them.
We have a particular set of circumstances in Northern Ireland. We are trying to change the whole shape and structure of the Northern Ireland economy, which for the past 30 years has suffered from the troubles that we all know about. We want to make it a high-wage, highly skilled and high value-added economy. That is what we are driving for, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will achieve through the measures in his last two Budgets—and, I am sure, in future Budgets as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Norman Baker: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Baker: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to a press release that was issued by the Labour party just before the last election, on the subject of the privatisation of air traffic control? According to the press release, the privatisation is an
own goal and shows how out of touch the government is.
It commands no public support, and will
undermine public confidence in Air Traffic Control".
Does the Prime Minister now agree with himself? Does he not think it rather dangerous to perform U-turns with aeroplanes?

The Prime Minister: No. As we made clear before the election, we are prepared to do anything necessary, both for public finances and to ensure that we secure the right investment in air traffic control. The public-private partnership that we have announced means that 49 per cent.—a golden share—stays with the Government. It will secure the investment that we need, and will give us a new regulatory body to improve air safety. I take it from the fact that the hon. Gentleman is now opposing the measure that that is another spending commitment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Jim Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the many thousands of Scotland supporters who enjoyed themselves so peacefully in France? Does he recognise that the vast majority of England supporters are also peaceable, and a credit to the nation and their team? Will he, however, lead the House in condemning the mindless minority of English hooligans who have terrorised the people and the city of Marseille, and will he give a commitment that action will be taken as a matter of urgency? England prides itself on the claim that it is the home of football, but, if such scenes are repeated, it will unfortunately be renowned as the home of football hooliganism.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. I congratulate the Scottish fans on the way in which they have behaved


throughout the World cup—and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the vast majority of English fans have behaved extremely well. We condemn, without reservation or qualification, the mindless minority who do nothing but bring disgrace on themselves and the name of our country abroad, and we have already introduced a huge package of measures in an attempt to stop such things happening. There was merely a trickle of restriction orders when we first came to power; there are now more than 70. We have put together probably the biggest package of measures for co-operation between the French and the British police that has ever been known.
Let me say this to my hon. Friend and to others. The problem is that, although we can stop known hooligans, if they are known, the vast majority of those who have been picked up by the French police have no record of football hooliganism that would appear on criminal records—or even on our database, which is the most extensive in the world. However, we will consider whatever other measures we can take, so that that small minority is eliminated from watching football throughout the world.

Mr. William Hague: I support the Prime Minister's sentiments. He clearly shares the anger that so many of us felt when pride in the victory of the England football team was coupled with shame at the behaviour of hooligans. We are tabling amendments to the Crime and Disorder Bill, which will be debated next week, to place new restrictions on thugs travelling to overseas football matches, and to make them pay compensation for the damage that they cause. Can we expect the Government's support for those amendments?

The Prime Minister: We shall certainly consider any amendments, and if they would improve the situation we would be very happy to accept them. In debates on the legislation, Conservative Front-Bench Members have tried to water down, rather than strengthen, the anti-social behaviour orders. If sensible amendments could make a difference, we shall support them. However, we must also consider ways of ensuring that restriction orders—the powers that already exist—are used more comprehensively. In particular, we must try to deal with the problem of intelligence on football hooligans, which is not as great as we need it to be, even though we have the most extensive database in the world. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), we can stop football hooligans only if they are known.

Mr. Hague: I agree entirely with what the Prime Minister said about the need for intelligence, although when he talked about the Opposition Front Bench—[Laughter.] He will find a good deal more intelligence among Opposition Members than he will among those sitting around him. When the Prime Minister referred to Opposition Front-Bench Members, he was mixing one set of amendments with another. Does he accept that there is a strong case for such measures? The view of this country from overseas is severely affected by these incidents. While he is quite right to talk about improved co-ordination, it is important to do everything we can to toughen up the legislation.

The Prime Minister: There is no point having a prolonged debate on this matter, but the right

hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesman described the proposals as dangerously unworkable. We are perfectly happy to examine any amendments that are tabled. We must also consider the restriction orders and the basis of co-operation with other police services. We should also encourage employers to take strong action against people who are convicted of football hooligan offences abroad. I hope that strong action is taken against convicted football hooligans who are employed by the public service or by the armed forces.
We can take all the measures we like—we should take whatever measures are necessary—but we must be quite clear where the responsibility for such violence lies. It lies with those individuals who do not represent the best either of Britain, of England or of English soccer.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Yorkshire and Humberside region has been the first to set up a regional chamber in anticipation of the establishment of regional development agencies next year? Does he agree that regional government for England would be a further step towards the Labour Government's objective of giving more power to people in the regions to take decisions over their own lives?

The Prime Minister: Regional development agencies will act as important co-ordinating bodies for attracting inward investment and for improving the circumstances of local economies. Having championed subsidiarity in Europe, we should champion it at home as well.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In the Budget, did the Chancellor really intend to penalise retiring small business men and women while creating a huge tax loophole worth perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds to some of the richest in the land, including some partners of certain merchant banks?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that the Chancellor has done that.

Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister seen the very clear report today, which says that the Chancellor has done exactly that? Has he read the report in the Financial Times, which says that the Chancellor has, indeed, done exactly that? The report in the Financial Times concedes the case, because one of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministers has apparently said, "Yes, we've got it right, and this proves that we need to get it—we've got it wrong, and this proves that we need to get it right."[Laughter.] I shall say that again, in case it is misunderstood. The Minister said, "We've got it wrong, and this proves that we need to get it right." Surely there cannot be any benefit in the Government creating large tax loopholes for the very rich while telling teachers and nurses that they must have pay rises less than the rate of inflation. The Prime Minister has said that hard choices must be made. This is an easy one: spend more money on providing decent public services for the many, and less on large tax breaks for the few.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that that is nonsense. The 10 per cent. capital gains rate is designed to encourage long-term investment, and we believe that it will do so. As for the cost measure and the implication


that we could pass this money on to other people, that is simply not the case. I believe that the vast majority of people support this measure, because it will encourage long-term investment in business and industry. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is against it.

Dr. Tony Wright: As one who had the good fortune to be at Wembley in 1966 on that glorious day when England won the World cup, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on his role in securing an honour for Geoff Hurst? However, it has created the expectation that every English footballer who scores a hat trick in a World cup final will receive a similar honour. Could my right hon. Friend send an urgent message to France saying that that expectation will be fully realised?

The Prime Minister: I think that the wisest course is probably to wait until the hat trick has been scored.

Mr. John Butterfill: The Prime Minister will be aware that his Foreign Secretary has refused to release to the Select Committee copies of the telegrams that were sent to the Foreign Office by our high commissioner in Sierra Leone. Is that because copies were forwarded to No. 10 Downing street?

The Prime Minister: No. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that that must await the outcome of the Legg inquiry when we will deal with it in accordance with the normal rules of the Pergau inquiry that took place earlier. I am sorry that Conservative Members, despite their best interests, still cannot manage to get anybody in the outside world interested in what has been a ridiculous Opposition caper from beginning to end.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that Lucas in my constituency proposes to make redundant next month 70 workers who make compressed natural gas bottles for vehicles. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country needs to do more to encourage the use of environmentally positive fuels, such as compressed natural gas, for road vehicles of all types? Does he agree that such a policy would be good for jobs and the environment?

The Prime Minister: It would and, of course, we have taken a series of measures, particularly in the foresight vehicle link programme, and in his Budget the Chancellor took measures to promote vehicles that use more environmentally friendly fuel. In the end, of course, businesses have to be run as such and I greatly sympathise with the plight of my hon. Friend's constituents. I know that he recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry to discuss whatever help we can give.

Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Prime Minister confirm the independent figures that have been produced by the House of Commons Library which show that after his first year in office the average family is £1,000 a year worse off as a result of tax and mortgage rate increases?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not confirm that. From memory, the House of Commons note upon which the Opposition rely states that it all depends on the

assumptions that are fed in by those who are asking for the information. The £1,000 includes, for example, rises in excise duty, five sixths of which were introduced by the previous Government. We all remember who put up taxes by over £1,000 a year. It was the Conservative party in direct breach of its election promises.

Yvette Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conviction rate for rape is a shocking 9 per cent.? Is he also aware of a new locally-driven West Yorkshire initiative that is trying to tackle the problem by providing specialist training for prosecuting barristers? Can he assure the House that Ministers will take a direct interest in that programme as it develops, and that if it is successful, they will encourage the Crown Prosecution Service to adopt the programme throughout the country?

The Prime Minister: An interim report was published by the Home Office in December. The final findings will not be available until early next year. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is already taking action. He has announced a series of proposals to improve the way that rape victims are treated by the criminal justice system. They include special measures to make the process of giving evidence less intimidating, a ban on defendants personally cross-examining the victim and powers to enable the court to clear the public gallery when a victim is giving evidence. In the light of the final report to be published early next year, we shall decide what other measures we need to take.

Mr. William Hague: On a day of disturbing economic statistics for wages and jobs, will the Prime Minister make it clear that he will not give in to the President of the Board of Trade, many of his Back Benchers and the Trades Union Congress when they call for the implementation unamended of the Low Pay Commission's recommendations?

The Prime Minister: We shall make our conclusions on the Low Pay Commission known when it is right to announce them. The continued Conservative opposition to a minimum wage shows how totally wedded they are to—[Interruption.] It is over here that we want to see them. These are the people who oppose any minimum wage at any level. These are the people who are happy that hundreds of thousands of people are paid less than £3 or less than £2.50 an hour. These are the people who believe that a strong economy can be built on sweatshop wages, but people on this side of the House do not.

Mr. Hague: It is a good job the Prime Minister is not on "Just a Minute", because we have heard deviation, hesitation and repetition, all in one answer. Are not three things now clear? Today's figures show a rapid rise in wage inflation and the first signs of an increase in unemployment. The introduction now of the Low Pay Commission's recommendations is likely to make both problems worse. Is it not essential that, if he cannot abandon those proposals for a minimum wage, he should at least water them down, as the Chancellor wants him to do?

The Prime Minister: I totally disagree. Employment in the past year, under this Government, is up more


than 400,000; unemployment is down 270,000; youth unemployment is down 60,000; and we have 30,000 already on the new deal, which is another policy opposed by the Conservative party. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet now, he will tell us whether he intends to repeal the minimum wage legislation if elected, or keep it.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister wants me to tell him our policy in future years when he will not tell us his policy today. Is it not extraordinarily complacent of him to dismiss the concerns about unemployment that inevitably arise from today's figures? Is it not incredibly arrogant of him to say that he will not water down the recommendations, when every newspaper has been briefed that that is what the Chancellor wants to do? How is it that every newspaper in the land can be told what the Chancellor thinks about this, but the Prime Minister does not have the courage to tell his own Back Benchers in the House of Commons? Is it not true that he and the Chancellor have decided that the minimum wage has got to be watered down? Let us hear from him frankly, now, at the Dispatch Box, that that has got to happen.

The Prime Minister: What is absolutely clear is that, as ever, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe that the answer to the problems of the economy is low wages. We do not believe that; we support a minimum wage and we shall introduce it. I do not know anybody who believes that it is the low-paid who have responsibility for any difficulties that there are. The responsibility lies with us to ensure that we have a proper, strong economic policy, in which we take the right measures for monetary and financial stability. Let us be clear on one thing: the Conservatives have opposed every interest rate rise since the election and every measure to cut the Budget deficit. If we carried on with the policies that the right hon. Gentleman wants, rather than with our policies, we would end up in the boom and bust that we had under the Conservatives, with interest rates at 15 per cent. for a year, record repossessions, record bankruptcies and record recession. That was his Government's record, but it is not going to be ours.

Mr. Hague: If there is no difficulty about a minimum wage, why is the Prime Minister finding it so difficult to reach a decision on it? He attacks the previous Government, but does he not recall that he inherited the best economic situation of any new Government? He inherited low inflation, low taxes, low interest rates and falling unemployment, but now we see taxes up, inflation up, mortgage rates up and unemployment heading that way. Does he still think that things could only get better?

The Prime Minister: I suspect that for the 400,000 extra people in work since the last election things are better. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman how else they have got better. We are going to avoid the economic crisis into which the previous Government plunged us in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Let us remember what we inherited—we inherited record borrowing and a doubled national debt. We, not the Tory Government, put those things right. It is we who have put the financial deficit in order. The Tory party, when in power, ran a deficit on the current account of £12 billion every year. We are going to run current account surpluses. We are going to get

down the national debt that it doubled. We are going to avoid boom and bust and put our economy on a stable footing, which the Tories never did.

Ms Sandra Osborne: Does the Prime Minister agree that National Air Traffic Services has a record of safety and efficiency which is second to none? Will he consider that commercial interests could jeopardise that record, and will he give a categorical assurance that the new Scottish centre at Prestwick will go ahead as planned, no matter which option is chosen for the future structure of NATS?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I understand that contract negotiations for a new air traffic control centre at Prestwick to replace the existing centre are under way between National Air Traffic Services and Sky Solutions, the preferred bidder. That will continue to be the case. Of course, as a result of the proposals that we are putting forward for air traffic control, an extra £1 billion will be invested in it, which is the best news for the service and for jobs that there could possibly be.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: On 6 May, the Prime Minister told the House with reference to the Northern Ireland agreement:
It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that".
Does the Prime Minister stand by that statement? If so, could he explain to me, so that I understand, why that requirement is not provided for as a prerequisite in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill which is currently before the House? Is not there a danger that those who affirmed the agreement and voted yes will consider that they did so under a false prospectus?

The Prime Minister: There is no reason to do that at all. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in a little detail because it is important.
On 6 May, I did indeed say that, and I stick by it 100 per cent. Indeed, I went on to say:
It is not just a question of decommissioning, but a question of making sure, as the agreement says, that there is a complete and unequivocal ceasefire."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
I also quoted the speech of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who said:
When sensitive matters such as prisoner release on licence are discussed—for which, as the Government has made clear, there is no general amnesty—the independent Commission, and the Secretary of State, are bound to have regard as to whether decommissioning has taken place.
[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can make his remarks later if he wishes.
I then went to Northern Ireland the next week and said in my Balmoral speech, which set out precisely what we were going to do:
In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the Agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account.
One of those was
full co-operation with the Independent Commission on decommissioning, to implement the provisions of the Agreement.


That is precisely what we have now put in the Bill which states:

"the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account"—
it then lists various items—
co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
In other words, that is precisely what we said we would do. We have put it in the legislation in order to make it quite clear that although, as I said, we cannot alter the agreement or insert new legislative preconditions, decommissioning is an essential part of the package. Those parts of the package in respect of decommissioning have to be obeyed, as everything else. That is what we said before the referendum; it is what we are saying now, and it is in the legislation.
I have to say to the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that we supported the previous Government through thick and thin on this. We shall look very, very carefully at any amendments that are tabled, but they cannot rewrite the agreement. Decommissioning remains an essential part of the agreement, and our legislation is fully consistent with what we established before the referendum.

Mr. Keith Vaz: The Prime Minister will recall that, in his speech last October in Brighton, he said that it was worth reminding ourselves of how much negative discrimination there really is. Given that statement, and the fact that he has now signed the Commission for Racial Equality's leadership challenge, will he tell the House precisely what action he will take to ensure that black and Asian people are fully represented in the highest levels of the civil service and in Government appointments to quangos?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend may know, there are a series of Government programmes to promote people from ethnic minority backgrounds coming into the public service, and the Government are currently working with the Windsor fellowship and other community organisations to ensure that black and Asian people are encouraged to apply for careers in the public sector. We are also fully committed to the Commission for Racial Equality's leadership challenge, which seeks to promote equal opportunity policies in public and private organisations.
It is also appropriate that we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the arrival, at Tilbury docks, on 22 June 1948, of the SS Windrush. I believe that those people and their descendants have made a great contribution to a Britain that is proud of being a multicultural, multiracial society.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: How can the Prime Minister justify spending annually over £1 million of taxpayers' money to fund employment of Labour party spin doctors at No. 10 Downing street?

The Prime Minister: We follow precisely the same rules that have been applied by other Governments and in exactly the same way. The fact that we do so rather better than the previous Government is a reflection on them rather than us.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: This week, I received an answer from the

Scottish Office stating that more than twice as many women between the ages of 35 and 54 die from breast cancer than from any other single cause. What action are the Government taking to tackle that greatest single cause of premature death? Will the Prime Minister tell us also whether further care will be given to older women by extension of routine screening beyond the age of 65?

The Prime Minister: First, I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend on the issue. We have put in place a series of proposals that will mean that—by April 1999, for breast cancer, and by 2000 for other cancers—there will be a maximum two-week waiting time to see a specialist after an urgent GP referral. Implementing that proposal is being funded specifically out of the money that was raised by getting rid of the internal market that did so much damage to the national health service. Women over 65 are not routinely invited for screening, although they are entitled on request to a free three-yearly scan. It is important that that entitlement should be more widely known and taken up. We are currently looking at ways in which we can improve the publicity given to it.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is now almost 12 months since two British aid workers—Camilla Carr and Jon James—were taken hostage in Chechnya? Does he realise that, last week, an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation from the House raised the matter with the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and received an assurance from the Russian Government that they will do everything that they can to ensure the hostages' early release? Bearing in mind the fact that their families are keen to raise the profile of the hostage issue in Britain, will the Prime Minister say that he, like me, will maintain his personal interest in the issue and do everything that he can to ensure that Camilla and Jon are returned home safely?

The Prime Minister: I certainly shall. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I have raised the issue myself a number of times with President Yeltsin, who has indicated that he gives his full support to efforts to find and free the hostages. Tomorrow, the Home Secretary will see the Russian Minister for the Interior. We are deeply concerned about the hostages—we have been deeply concerned about them all the time that they have been in captivity. We shall continue to do everything that we possibly can to locate, to find and to free them.

Ms Oona King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the Jarman index, I represent the most deprived area in Britain? Is he also aware that Tower Hamlets suffers from the greatest overcrowding in housing in Britain—in fact, 10 times the national average? Will he join me in congratulating the council on reducing the housing waiting list by 10 per cent. over the past year? Will he give us further assurances that more money will be made available for housing in the poorest areas of Britain?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The capital receipts initiative has already put


some £50 million into London authorities. The figure will increase to almost £170 million this year. Obviously, that will make a difference to housing waiting lists, as will the inner cities initiative which attempts to deal with some of the worst housing estates. Perhaps most important, however, is the fact that, under the new deal, large

numbers of people who are long-term unemployed, lone parents or young people who have been unemployed for a significant period of time can get help to get a job. Getting a job and earning a decent standard of living is one of the most important factors in providing better housing.

European Council (Cardiff)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the meeting of the European Council which I chaired in Cardiff on 15 and 16 June. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friends the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury were also present. I have placed a copy of the conclusions in the Library.
I should begin by thanking the city council and the people of Cardiff for their warm welcome and hospitality. I congratulate them whole-heartedly on the arrangements for the summit, which were universally admired. Cardiff itself looked marvellous and did great credit to Wales and this country.
The European Council had four main themes: economic reform and employment, enlargement and the necessary accompanying policy reforms, the future development of the EU and foreign policy issues, notably Kosovo. We also discussed a range of other questions which touch the lives of ordinary people: the environment, crime and drugs and the millennium bug. The Finance Ministers issued a statement on the world economy, a copy of which is attached to the conclusions.
We had an important and valuable debate on the economic reform programme needed in Europe if the single currency is to succeed. There were four aspects to that. The first was employment. At Luxembourg last November, the European Council agreed a set of employment guidelines aimed at promoting a skilled, trained and adaptable work force and flexible labour markets responsive to economic change. Under the United Kingdom presidency, all 15 member states have submitted national action plans putting the guidelines into effect. We agreed at Cardiff that the next steps were concrete measures on lifelong learning, with a particular emphasis on older workers, strengthening equal opportunities, promoting new ways of organising work, revising tax and benefits systems to improve incentives to work and developing a culture of entrepreneurship. The need now is to implement the national plans. The guidelines themselves will be revised in December.
Secondly, the European Council endorsed broad economic guidelines to co-ordinate national economic policies. They incorporate commitments on macroeconomic stability and structural reforms of the labour, product and capital markets—essential if member states are to promote growth and employment and remain competitive in the face of globalisation. The guidelines also emphasise the need for reform to remove regulatory burdens on businesses. We established a process to exchange best practice and monitor progress to ensure that those commitments are lived up to.
Thirdly, good progress has been made on strengthening the single market during the past six months, for example through agreements on telecoms and gas liberalisation injecting genuine competition into those markets. The European Council agreed that the Commission should work on an extended scoreboard containing indicators of effective market integration and price differentials, as a tool for benchmarking progress in creating a genuine

single market. The existing scoreboard has already helped implementation of single market measures by member states to improve from 73 to 82 per cent. in the past six months. We invited the Commission to table an action plan to improve the single market in financial services, and emphasised the need to promote competition and reduce distortions such as state aids. These are important commitments. Perfecting the single European market is vital for trade and investment.
The fourth area was the need to promote competitiveness and entrepreneurship. We were all fully agreed on the vital role of small companies in creating new jobs and wealth, and on the need for action to produce the best possible environment to encourage entrepreneurs. That means, in particular, increasing access to capital and cutting unnecessary regulation. Action in those areas was agreed.
Fundamental economic reform is essential if member states are to be able to compete and create jobs in the global marketplace, and is therefore particularly essential for monetary union. The measures agreed at Cardiff represent a new strategy to achieve that. I draw the House's attention to two points: the degree to which the strategy reflects British thinking about competitiveness and the direction of reform, and the unanimity across Europe that this is the right way forward.
The second major theme was enlargement and the policy reform needed for that. Enlargement negotiations and the accession process were successfully launched in March. The Commission also tabled then a package of proposals on the reform of EU policies and their financing—the so-called Agenda 2000. The proposals would, for example, reform the common agricultural policy and save the consumer at least £1 billion a year in lower prices. The European Council agreed a deadline of March 1999 for reaching agreement on the package, with final adoption before the European Parliament elections next June.
A crucial part of the negotiations will concern the EU' s future financing. There has been a good deal of press speculation about the position of the German and other Governments over their net contributions to the budget. No doubt member states will continue to make their case for change in one direction or another. For our part, I made it clear that I will maintain the United Kingdom budget rebate, which cannot be changed without the agreement of the Government and the House.
As part of our enlargement debate, we discussed Turkey. The UK presidency has worked hard to restore positive EU-Turkey relations following the downturn at the end of 1997. The Cardiff conclusions re-emphasised that Turkey's candidature to join the EU must be treated on the same basis as those of other candidate countries, and endorsed a new strategy towards Turkey. The Commission has now said that it will come forward with proposals for financing to overcome the existing impasse in that area. It is too soon to say definitively, but I believe that that will help to put this important relationship back on the rails and provide a basis for future progress.
On the foreign policy side, we issued a strong declaration on Kosovo, condemning the use of indiscriminate violence by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbian security forces. If President Milosevic does not take steps to comply with our demands


on dialogue, refugees, international monitoring and an end to violence, he should be in no doubt about our united resolve. We wait to see whether his discussions with President Yeltsin yesterday may lead to the necessary changes on the ground. Meanwhile, NATO planning and UN Security Council consultation will continue.
We also discussed our serious concern about the middle east peace process, where the EU remains supportive of US efforts. We called on India and Pakistan to take early steps to adhere to the international non-proliferation regime. We expressed support for Indonesia—provided a credible economic reform programme is followed—and underlined the need for an acceptable solution to the problems of East Timor, including the early release of political prisoners. The European Council gave its support to the Northern Ireland peace agreement, and agreed that the EU should continue its active role in promoting peace and prosperity there.
We also discussed the environment and crime and drugs. We agreed on the need to implement the Amsterdam treaty provisions on integrating environmental protection into EU policies. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister began this process during the UK presidency by bringing the work of the Transport and Environment Councils together and ensuring that the next three presidencies are committed to an agreed programme. I am also delighted that, one hour ago, the Environment Council in Luxembourg concluded the European Union's burden-sharing arrangements to implement the legal obligation agreed at Kyoto for greenhouse gas emissions. That is an important step towards a cleaner world.
In Cardiff, we welcomed the excellent progress made in implementing the action plan on organised crime. We endorsed the key elements of the EU drugs strategy for the period 2000–04 and asked the Council and Commission to develop a comprehensive plan for action.
Heads of Government also had a wide-ranging discussion on the future development of the EU. We face big challenges: the introduction of the euro, enlargement, tackling unemployment and social exclusion, combating organised crime and giving the Union an effective voice in the world. There was agreement among EU leaders that, if the Union is to meet those challenges in a way that has the confidence of our citizens, it must ensure that people feel less remote from its political processes and institutions, and that they can support European solutions to shared problems without fear of losing their national identity. That means increasing the democratic legitimacy of the European political process and making a reality of subsidiarity—being ready to co-operate where that is the right way of resolving common problems, while reassuring our peoples that Europe will not encroach on national or regional freedom of action in areas where the state or, indeed, local authorities can best take responsibility.
There was widespread acceptance that the solutions do not simply lie in more centralised decision making, and that we need to find a more effective relationship between Europe's institutions and our national Governments and Parliaments. We now have to take those principles and make them the centrepiece of future European reform. The informal Heads of Government meeting in Austria in October will begin that process.
We have also agreed that, once the Amsterdam treaty is ratified, we will move on to the institutional issues not resolved at Amsterdam—notably, the size of the Commission and vote reweighting. We also asked the Commission and the Council to pursue work on improving their efficiency and organisation and to report on progress during the next presidency.
I was delighted to welcome Nelson Mandela to Cardiff, joining my European colleagues in paying tribute to his extraordinary leadership in South Africa, and taking the opportunity to discuss with him the prospects for completion of an EU-South Africa co-operation agreement. We are agreed on completing the negotiations by the early autumn. I understand that only 1 per cent. of the issues remain to be resolved.
I believe that the Cardiff European Council marked a solid step forward towards a more effective and better accepted European Union. We agreed, without rows or drama, on a series of substantive points to equip our countries and peoples better for the future. At the start of the UK presidency, I outlined five objectives: building support for a third way in Europe—economic reform, combining economic dynamism with social justice; launching monetary union; getting enlargement off to a good start; taking forward common action on crime, drugs and the environment; and demonstrating that Europe could be a force for good in its relations with the outside world.
Those objectives have been met. As important as anything else, for Britain, after years of negative and destructive posturing that isolated Britain in Europe but did not advance our interests, we have re-established strong, positive relations with our European Union partners. Those relations, not before time, are transformed and for the better. That is good for Britain, for Europe and for Britain in Europe. Cardiff was the proof of that.

Mr. William Hague: I shall begin by agreeing with the Prime Minister on one thing: congratulating the city and the people of Cardiff on hosting the summit, fully justifying the decision taken on the matter by the previous Government and proposed by me as Secretary of State for Wales.
The Prime Minister's statement brings to an end a British presidency of disappointment, missed opportunities and poor diplomacy. Indeed, the presidency was recently censured by the European Parliament for reinforcing the image of a bureaucratic, rather than a people's Europe.
We welcome the progress on implementing the overdue single market directives in national laws, and the reaffirmation of the European Union's commitment to the World Trade Organisation. On Kosovo, we welcome the moves to ensure that the Serbian Government understand that political progress is the only long-term solution to the problem, and that that means that the province's autonomy must be reinstated and the civil rights of ethnic Albanians fully respected.
Progress in those areas cannot disguise what is absolutely clear from the European Council's conclusions: little or no progress has been made on the central objectives that the Prime Minister himself set for the British presidency of the EU. Does he remember saying, when he launched the British presidency at Waterloo station, that one of the top priorities was to get


negotiations on EU enlargement off to a "flying start"? Does he share my disappointment that, six months later, that looks further away than ever? Is he aware that the Finnish Prime Minister has said publicly that enlargement is
looking more problematic than it did a year ago"?
Does he agree with today's editorial in the Financial Times, which sums up a widely held view at home and abroad:
The most dispiriting aspect of the summit…was its failure to inject momentum into the reforms—financial, agricultural, and institutional—essential to proceed with enlargement to the east"?
Does the Prime Minister also remember saying at Waterloo station that he would tackle
the cost and waste of the CAP",
which
continue to grow year by year"?
Will he now concede that, six months later, we are no nearer fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy? The first meeting on the Agenda 2000 negotiations on CAP reform all but collapsed, and member states have so far failed to find a common position on which to begin negotiations. For all the right hon. Gentleman's fine words, at the end of the British presidency we are left with the cost and waste of the CAP continuing to "grow year by year".
As for the reform of structural funds and of the internal institutions of the EU—both essential prerequisites to enlargement—the Prime Minister has admitted today that those have been left to the Austrian presidency later this year.
On reducing Europe's crippling levels of unemployment—another of his original Waterloo objectives—does the right hon. Gentleman agree with a view widely held across Europe that the momentum created by the Luxembourg summit on jobs in November has been all but lost over the past six months? After all the talk, talk, talk about tackling unemployment, the British presidency has achieved nothing of substance. All that the Prime Minister has been able to promise in his statement is that unemployment is yet another issue to be given greater urgency at the European Council in Vienna under the Austrian presidency.
Then there was the environment, which the Prime Minister described as a theme of his presidency. Has he seen the comments by Friends of the Earth, which condemned the Cardiff summit as
not much greener than a multi-storey car park"?
Let us hope that this afternoon's agreement has led to some improvement on that.
Another of the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman set himself six months ago was to smooth Europe's relations with the outside world. Does he share our disappointment that his presidency presided over the collapse of the EU's new transatlantic marketplace initiative, which would have taken us a long way towards creating a transatlantic free trade area, with all the benefits to businesses and jobs that that would have brought?
As for the failure to conclude a trade deal with South Africa—a deal that was supposed to be the highlight of the Cardiff Council—does the Prime Minister agree with Glenys Kinnock—[Laughter.]—who said:
I don't know how the EU leaders can look Mandela in the face?

The right hon. Gentleman may laugh at that. I do not want to embarrass Glenys Kinnock—he might tell her to get off the gravy train—but that is what she said.
In the light of the utter shambles surrounding the Brussels summit on a single currency, which the Prime Minister himself chaired, and for which I suspect his presidency will be remembered, does he regret saying at Waterloo station:
dealing with whatever is on the agenda with dispatch and efficiency is the hallmark of an effective presidency"?
Does the right hon. Gentleman remember coming to the House after the Brussels summit and saying—not that anyone believed him at the time—that all the issues on the launch of a single currency had been "resolved satisfactorily"? Yet now we hear him on the "Today" programme saying that that summit was a "mess". It is a pity that he did not have the straightforwardness to say so here in the House of Commons at the time.
Six months ago, the Prime Minister set clear objectives for the British presidency, leading up to the Cardiff summit—objectives on enlargement, on CAP reform, on employment, on external relations and on the environment. He said that the presidency would be
a test for Britain to show that we can and do offer strong leadership in Europe".
Six months later, is it not clear that the Government have failed that test? Is it not clear to everyone that the Prime Minister is no closer to achieving his objectives than he was at the beginning of the year?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a huge number of things have been left to the Austrian presidency to take forward? On CAP reform, on enlargement and on recovering momentum on unemployment, all that the Cardiff Council could say was that those subjects would be dealt with in Vienna. No wonder the British presidency has been an object of derision across the continent.
Has the Prime Minister seen Le Point magazine, which said:
the British Presidency of the European Union is, at the moment, one of the most timid and poor in recent years"?
I am surprised that the Chancellor has not read what has been said about himself and the Foreign Secretary recently. Did the Prime Minister read the Austrian newspaper Der Standard two days ago, when it summed up the Prime Minister's performance as:
A lion at the start. A lamb at the finish"?
Is the Prime Minister aware that, when I was in Cardiff on Sunday, one European leader told me that, during the British presidency, he had had his photograph taken more often than ever before, but had never been asked to reach a substantive decision? When the right hon. Gentleman looks back on the past six months, does he not see that he has left only one real and worthwhile legacy to his successor? Referring to the Brussels summit of last month, the Austrian Chancellor says that he has
now learnt how not to organise a summit".
The Prime Minister always wanted to be a president. What a shame that, when he was one, he made a mess of it.

The Prime Minister: Some of us recall the previous Conservative Government. Some of us recall the beef war, and the shambles that occurred every time they went anywhere near Europe. I can tell the Leader of the


Opposition that the overwhelming feeling—not just in the rest of the continent but, I suspect, in this country—is, "Thank heavens that Conservative Government have gone."
If the Leader of the Opposition wants some quotations, I should point out that the German newspapers in the past few days have said:
The Labour Prime Minister can pride himself on the fact that Britain has presided over two truly historic steps forward towards European unity during the British EU Presidency: the founding of monetary union and the launch of enlargement.
From Spain, we hear:
The British Presidency can be judged … as competent and professional.
From Sweden:
The most important change in the British Presidency this time round has been the will and ambition to actually achieve something positive and not to only delay and criticise.
From France:
In Cardiff, the Europe of nations is scoring points over the supporters of federalism.
From Portugal:
Germany and France are now more in agreement with Britain's economic positions: greater flexibility, greater competitiveness, less centralisation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about the Daily Express?

The Prime Minister: I would quote the Daily Express if knew what was in it. If it is on my side in this matter, that is very helpful. Whatever it is, I will pray that in aid as well. [Interruption.] The story probably is not true—at least I hope that it is not.
Quite the most bizarre experience in Cardiff was to be preceded there by the Leader of the Opposition running around, holding press conferences and saying what a disaster everything was about Cardiff and the British presidency. I just point out—seriously—that, if a Labour Opposition had ever behaved like that on the eve of a Tory presidency, those self-same newspapers that support the right hon. Gentleman at the moment would have accused us of being unpatriotic. The fact is that no one paid the slightest attention to him at Cardiff, or anywhere else—but that is more a reflection on the right hon. Gentleman than anything else.
The fact is that we achieved all that we said we would do as a UK presidency. We did launch monetary union, and we did get enlargement off to a flying start. It is bizarre for the right hon. Gentleman to say that nothing happened on enlargement—we launched the enlargement process. The accession partnership is now under way, and we have agreed a timetable for all the reforms to be put in place for Agenda 2000 by March 1999.
As for the common agricultural policy, as a result of the conclusions of the Agriculture Council—chaired by Britain—there is already agreement to reduce prices to consumers by more than £1 billion a year, rising to £2.5 billion later.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we achieved nothing on jobs and unemployment, but we have achieved an enormous amount. The agreements that have been made

not just at the beginning of our presidency but at Cardiff represent—as he will see, if he reads the conclusions—probably the most radical change in direction for Europe for many, many years, and very good, too. They represent action by Government which is far more effective than some of the more bureaucratic regulations pursued in the past.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we had failed on the environment— literally just hours after we scored a significant victory. We have implemented the Kyoto package and, under the brilliant chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we have got Europe to agree on how to implement it. That is a considerable step forward.
The right hon. Gentleman had a collection of criticisms from a Finnish newspaper, Friends of the Earth and Glenys Kinnock. On the EU-South Africa matter, we would have liked an agreement in place by Cardiff. However, it was not as a result of the UK that agreement was not reached. We have now agreed that we shall conclude the negotiations by the early autumn, and only about 1 per cent. of the matters are still outstanding—a considerable step forward.
It was extraordinary for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Europe's relations with the outside world have been adversely affected. The EU-US summit got us a way around the extraterritorial sanctions of the US—something that people in the EU have been trying to do for years. We managed to achieve that. On Kosovo, the EU has not been the problem. If there are problems, they lie outside the EU. For the first time in ages, we managed to get a common position established quickly.
As for the Brussels summit, as I have always said, the negotiation was very difficult, but the result was right. If we had followed the advice that the right hon. Gentleman was urging on me—he would have blocked the Dutch candidate—we would have ended up with the financial markets opening on the Monday without any candidate, or any candidate anyone had heard of, to head the European central bank. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that would have been a complete disaster, both for Britain and for Europe.
If the right hon. Gentleman looks more closely at these things, he will see that, as I said, one of the most important aspects of the British presidency has been the establishment of good, solid relations between Britain and the rest of Europe. His problem—although I am not sure what position he really takes—is that many in his party are opposed to everything to do with Europe. They do not want the euro or anything in Europe to succeed—they are opposed to it and do not like it. That is why they and a few of their friends in the press have to go around saying that Britain can never get on with Europe—they do not want Britain ever to have a positive relationship with Europe. We have tried to establish good relations with the rest of Europe precisely to get rid of such attitudes. I suggest that, rather than attack us, the right hon. Gentleman should sort out his party, unite it and give it a sensible position to defend.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In overall tone and initial intention, much in the British presidency over the past six months—culminating, of course, in Cardiff—can, we believe, be welcomed. It has been a pleasure to have a British Government who have taken a more constructive


attitude, which has won Britain new chances. The Government's agenda—reform of the CAP and the common fisheries policy, cost cutting, institutional reform and jobs—has been right. Measured against the initial hype, however, the outcome has been more disappointing than we should have liked. The Government can reasonably claim to have made a start, but not to have made much progress.
I want to touch on three areas. The first is institutional. Does the Prime Minister agree—there was a hint of it in his statement—that the time has come for a much clearer definition of those powers that will be held at the centre of the European institutions and of those that must ultimately remain with the nation state?
Secondly, on Kosovo, we welcome the steps, small as they are, that have been taken as a result of the Milosevic-Yeltsin meeting, but does the Prime Minister agree that, unless President Milosevic is prepared, whatever he may have signed up to in Moscow, to silence the use of heavy weapons against his civilian population—which is a clear infringement of civil liberties and destabilises the Balkans extremely dangerously—NATO may have to do that for him?
Finally, the Prime Minister quoted with approval the comments of a German newspaper that there had been an historic achievement on monetary union. Does he find anything odd in the fact that monetary union had only a bit part in the concluding paragraph of his statement? Monetary union was one of the most historic achievements of the presidency, but Britain presided over it rather than took part in it. The previous Government's failure—and, I am bound to say, the timidity of this Government—on monetary union means that Britain is outside Euro X exactly when the provisions for external trade, in which Britain has a greater stake than any other European nation, are being drawn up.
As I have said before, the Prime Minister will have to grasp this nettle, and he will have to do so sooner rather than later. If he followed, as we recommend, a declaratory policy saying, "We will join," set a target date, held a referendum on the principle before the next election and took the decision afterwards at a time of the Government's choosing, the pound would go down, interest rates would go down, investment would come to Britain rather than be at risk of going elsewhere, and Britain would be able to capitalise on the Government's fresh and new tone, so that our influence in Europe would increase incredibly, giving us a better deal for the future. Why can the right hon. Gentleman not see that?

The Prime Minister: First, the two biggest steps that Europe has taken in the past few years have been enlargement and monetary union, which were both launched under the UK presidency, so it is odd to say that we have not made progress—we have made considerable progress. I could have quoted from other foreign newspapers, as the coverage has been extremely positive. The Conservative party and some of its supporters in the newspapers always want to pretend that Britain cannot get on with Europe—they can never have a good news story about Europe; it is a sort of suppressed thing. Anyway, we did extremely well on that.
The most important thing about the institutional changes is that the new debate which we have launched from Cardiff will not be limited to subsidiarity, but will

deal with the areas in which Europe should co-operate and work more closely together, for example, crime, drugs, foreign policy, completion of the single market and economic co-operation, and those in which it can plainly do less from the centre and where we need decentralisation. That is a big debate and it is now under way. If it is properly fashioned and formulated, we can play a significant part in it.
As for what the right hon. Gentleman said about Kosovo, I agree entirely. NATO may still have to do that and, obviously, we have to build the maximum amount of support for it. However, what is heartening from the European Union perspective is that we got a common position together quickly, which has been promulgated. There is no difficulty within the European Union about taking action, including military action.
As for monetary union, of course, if we are not a part of it, we will have less influence over it—that is a statement of the obvious. It is the price that we pay if we are outside. However, we have to take the decision on monetary union on the ground of our national economic interest. That is what we have said all the way through. We have laid down the conditions clearly. I have said that I want the euro to succeed and that it is an important step for stability in Europe. We have to be sure that our national economic conditions are correct. At present, there is not sustainable convergence between ourselves and other economies and, if we joined without that, the result would be bad for Britain. We have set the right principles and I believe that we have set the right course. We are making preparations for our industry to be able to use the euro—to deal in it, in any event.
The different relations that we have in Europe are an important facet of this country's better standing in the world. Also, we have nailed one other myth, which is that Britain has to choose between a relationship with the United States and a relationship with the European Union. We are stronger in the US if we are stronger in Europe, and we are stronger in Europe if our relationship with the US is maintained.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I wonder if we could make a little progress now. The statement has taken nearly half an hour and only two right hon. Members have been able to ask questions.

Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Prime Minister agree that the constructive British presidency has helped to reconcile the United Kingdom to its continental partners and the British people to membership of the European Union? The presidency has also seen the beginning of enlargement with the countries of central and eastern Europe and of economic and monetary union, which is a historic event indeed. Is it not the case, however, that, if the United Kingdom is to keep up its European momentum, the sooner we join the European currency, the better?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any point in repeating what I have said on that. We have put our position very clearly and that is the position to which we will hold, but I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments on our presidency.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Would the Prime Minister accept that many of us regard


the presidency as a pathetic flop? We are well aware that the previous Government, and indeed this one, have tried hard, but the problem is that the European Union is not the sort of structure that is amenable to reforms.
On agriculture, does it not worry the Prime Minister, first, that every day since he came to office, £635,000—a lot of money—has been spent on destroying food and, secondly, that the most that he could achieve next year would be lower prices in exchange for higher subsidies? Will this Government—and, indeed, all Governments—not accept that there will never be a way of reforming that policy unless they take the responsibility back to member states?

The Prime Minister: Let me first say where I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I agree that the common agricultural policy requires fundamental reform.

Sir Teddy Taylor: But we will never get it.

The Prime Minister: We will get it. People say that Europe never reforms itself, but it constantly reforms and changes—the very process of enlargement is a massive reform in Europe, as is the single market. It is not correct to say that Europe never reforms. In the end, the hon. Gentleman takes the position—it is a perfectly honourable position—that Britain would be better out of Europe altogether. That is his view and I totally understand it. My own judgment is that that would be disastrous for Britain, in terms of jobs, investment and our standing in the world. In the end, the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party must be careful not to leave themselves hoping the whole time that Europe will fail, because only failure will justify their position. It would be better to recognise that any serious Government will keep Britain in the European Union, and that we should try to make it work.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I press the Prime Minister on military action in Kosovo? In the absence of ground troops, including heavy armour, what will air strikes achieve? What is the common position on the delicate question of the further fragmentation of Yugoslavia? Do we have an undertaking that no military action will be taken without the agreement of both the Russians and the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: Of course we are working hard to get United Nations support for the action that we seek to take. It would not be wise for me—vis-a-vis President Milosevic—to speculate on what efficacy there may be in various military options. I assure my hon. Friend that the options are under consideration in NATO and that we are in consultation with our allies.
As for the break-up of the federal republic, if my hon. Friend is referring to the idea of independence for Kosovo, I will say that we have made it clear that that is not our aim or our desire. We support the idea of autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but securing the independence of Kosovo is not our objective. Our objective is to ensure that the aggression and brutality happening in Kosovo should cease.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Prime Minister explain why the European Union feels it necessary to have

a position on the merits or otherwise of Kosovan independence? With his apparent enthusiasm for the use of armed force around the world, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the almost unanimous feedback that the Select Committee on Defence received from the Royal Air Force in Germany and the British Army of the Rhine on our recent visit there, which was that overstretch on indefinite operations means that the armed forces frankly cannot sustain another indefinite operational commitment without severe damage to our military capability? Will he bear in mind the fact that we have been in Cyprus for 34 years, in the Gulf for eight and in Bosnia for six, before he takes steps to deploy armed service men on yet another operational commitment that has no end in sight?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Defence Committee are aware that we inherited a situation in which defence forces had been cut by 30 per cent. under the previous Government. What is important is that the strategic defence review is conducted not as a cost-cutting exercise, but as a genuine exercise in how to equip our forces for the modern world. When the review is published, the hon. Gentleman will find that it does precisely that. We hope to avoid the mistakes made by the Government that he supported.
The hon. Gentleman asked why it is necessary for the European Union to have a position. By implication, he suggests that we should not consider any action at all in Kosovo.

Mr. Blunt: No.

The Prime Minister: Forgive me; I misunderstood that part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
It is important that the European Union should take a position because the strategic interests of the EU are engaged. There is already serious disorder, and if it becomes even more serious and the region is destabilised, it will spread into Albania and Macedonia. What could happen in the whole Balkan region is perfectly clear, and we have learnt enough from our history to realise that we have to take action. We had similar debates at the time of Bosnia, when many Conservative Members said, "Why bother?" If we had not bothered, we would face a catastrophe in that part of the world. We face the same choices again, and we shall try to ensure that whatever military action we take is swift and effective.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: To save time, I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) about the role of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I also support the Prime Minister's attitude towards Britain's joining the European single currency very quickly.
Many people are anxious about Turkey joining the European Union, especially when we consider its record on human rights, its banning of political parties and the treatment of its Kurds. Considering its current actions, one wonders whether it merits consideration for membership. It seems to have refused to attend to even the most basic human rights policies.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. It is clear that the Copenhagen criteria


would apply to Turkey, as to any candidate country. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, human rights workers in Turkey want it to be part of the European Union. We must make it clear that we can discriminate neither in favour of nor against Turkey. It must be judged by precisely the same standards as everyone else. We also need to find a way of unblocking the financing strategy for the customs union, which is an obligation into which the European Union entered.
We made progress on Turkey at the Cardiff summit, and I hope that we can get a more positive response from Turkey as a result of the significant moves that we have made to help it.

Mr. Ian Taylor: If anything, I should like the Prime Minister to have made more progress on the two key elements for the presidency: economic and monetary union and enlargement of the European Union. It is in the national interest for both to be successful. Will the Prime Minister draw certain conclusions, because the Chancellor's recent statement did not give clear evidence on how the convergence between our economy and those on the continent can take place, but it cannot simply happen by accident? The fiscal relaxation will clearly cause monetary tightening.
We must ensure that enlargement takes place, but will the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the British people that it is not a cost-free exercise? Economically, it will have considerable repercussions for the wealthier nations of the existing European Union, and there will be some tough institutional challenges that he will have to explain.

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that the fiscal relaxation of which the hon. Gentleman speaks has occurred. In fact, the fiscal tightening that was built into the Budget will apply for the next three years. Most people think that it was a tough settlement, and the debt to gross domestic product ratio is due to come down from the 45 per cent. which we inherited to 38 per cent. As I said at Question Time, current surpluses will run in every single year of the Labour Government. There has had to be monetary tightening because of the inflation that has come back into the system. We produced a pretty big fiscal tightening when we came to office, in the face of opposition from the Conservative party.

Mr. Taylor: We must watch the figures carefully.

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree.
There will be no easy ride, and that is why we have not yet been able to reach an agreement, but it is important that we have now agreed a timetable. There will be changes to the common agricultural policy and the structural and cohesion funds, but it is not all one way and there will be great benefits from enlargement, in terms of both trade and an enhanced role for the former communist states of eastern Europe. We must have the courage to go ahead with enlargement and complete it in the German presidency. We made good progress in our presidency, and it was never envisaged that we would complete the process.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In the context of improving democratic accountability in the

European Community, does my right hon. Friend welcome today's report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on scrutiny of European business, and in particular the extension of the powers of the Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise more effectively EC legislation and the proposals under pillars 2 and 3 of the Maastricht treaty?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we support that strongly. The better the scrutiny of European legislation and actions by national Parliaments, the easier it is to move Europe closer to people.

Mr. Christopher Gill: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his experiences during the British presidency have helped him to understand that the European Union is not a democracy, but a collective? Does he recognise that a collective can operate only in its own interests and, by definition, cannot act in the separate interests of its component parts? Does that not explain why he has so abjectly failed to deliver any satisfaction on or resolution of the problems afflicting the British agriculture and fishing industries, which will most likely be bankrupt before the Community is able to change its ways?

The Prime Minister: Actually, we have achieved considerable progress on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and we have had the ban lifted in Northern Ireland—the European Commission at least has agreed the date-based scheme, although there is still some way to go. At Amsterdam, we concluded a good agreement in respect of fishing, which, again, is progress.
I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman, almost philosophically, that collectives can never operate in the interests of the individual parts. Britain is part of the European Union, not for reasons of Europe, but because it is in Britain's interest to be part of it. Of course that means that we pool sovereignty to an extent, as we do in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for defence reasons, and of course that means that we do not always get our way on everything—that is in the nature of collective arrangements—but, taken all in all, Britain's membership of the EU has been positive and good.
The hon. Gentleman should look back over 50 or more years of arrangements that we have had with the rest of Europe, and he should consider how the EU has developed—it has developed in a way that is positive for this country and for the whole of Europe. I am afraid that we just disagree.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Did discussions at Cardiff include consideration of the significant contribution that EU structural funds have made to regional competitiveness in the United Kingdom through, for example, support for businesses, training, regeneration and initiatives such as the Merseyside special investment fund? Has he considered how regions of this country might have more authority in their dealings with Europe and in the administration of structural funding, to ensure that full benefit goes to them and that they achieve maximum competitiveness?

The Prime Minister: We certainly discussed the importance of structural funds, which are obviously very important in areas such as Merseyside. We believe that


the new development agencies will help to co-ordinate European money in respect of the various regions of the country. There will have to be changes in structural funds, but areas of the United Kingdom, such as Merseyside, will still have a good claim.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: May I echo the Prime Minister's congratulations to the people of Cardiff on a successful Council and the excellent arrangements? The Council certainly raised the profile of Cardiff as our capital city and of Wales as a nation.
As the Prime Minister knows, the presidency conclusions refer to the reform of structural funds, and progress was noted. Does he realise that parts of Wales, especially west Wales and the valleys, will qualify for objective 1 status for the first time when the reforms are taking place? Will he give a commitment that the Government will support that application?

The Prime Minister: We will certainly do our best for those areas of Wales. I cannot give a guarantee on what the outcome will be, but we shall make the case strongly. In relation to Cardiff, I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the problem of Turkey? He has referred to its human rights record: is it being made clear that there is no way in which it could be accepted into the European Union for as long as it illegally occupies northern Cyprus? Is it being made clear to Cyprus that its application for membership of the EU will not in any way be vetoed by Turkey? Can we encourage Cyprus in that it will not be too long, even if the occupation continues, before it is properly a member of the EU?

The Prime Minister: It is, of course, not a precondition for accession by Cyprus that there is a settlement of the division there. It is, however, only right and honest to point out to people that it will be far easier for the accession negotiations to proceed smoothly if there is a settlement, and I believe that better relations with Turkey are an important part of achieving that.
We have made it clear that there should be no discrimination in favour of Turkey, which would have to abide by the same rules as every other country, but it is important to make it clear to Turkey that we are not discriminating against her either. We should in particular make it clear that the European Commission has now said that it is minded to introduce a strategy to unblock financing. That would be a big step forward, and I hope that there is a good response from Turkey.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Prime Minister recall that, during the European summit, he held a press conference at which he expressed the belief that the establishment of a single European currency would help to protect Europe from an Asian-style economic and financial crisis? I believe that that is the exact opposite of the truth.
Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that, if we leave out Japan, which has a different set of problems from the rest of Asia, the prime cause of the Asian

financial and economic crisis was the fact that the countries involved had been on quasi-fixed exchange rates, operating theoretically through a basket of currencies, but actually dominated by a single currency—in their case, the United States dollar? I believe that those fixed exchange rates brought about the crisis, following tremendous tensions that eventually proved to be insupportable and unsustainable. I fear that similar considerations will in due course hit the euro, and will cause havoc in the economies of continental Europe.

The Prime Minister: I certainly recognise the hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters, but I think that the Asian crisis was caused by, as much as anything else, the lack of transparency and accountability in those countries' financial systems. There was also an absence of political reform in certain systems, which meant that people were not confident that the economic information and data that they were receiving were correct.
As for monetary union, I said that it would be a force for stability provided two things happened. First, a strong financial monetary policy must be pursued by the European Union as a whole—by the central bank. Secondly, monetary union must be combined with a programme of economic reform—structural reform in Europe. I think that, if Europe does both those things—if it runs a tight and disciplined micro-economic policy, and pursues measures to encourage micro-economic dynamism—the EU and monetary union will succeed; but, obviously, debates on this matter will continue.

several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I can now call only Members who will ask brief questions, because I am not prepared to keep the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box after 4.30 pm. There are eight minutes to go.

Mr. Richard Burden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and the progress that has been made.
May I refer my right hon. Friend to what he said about the middle east peace process? Does he agree that it is a matter of great concern that tension is increasing in the region, and that the situation is not helped by the recent intransigent attitude of the Israeli Government? There have been provocative actions—for instance, the military parades that took place on the 30th anniversary of the occupation of east Jerusalem.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the good work done by our consulate in that part of the world in monitoring the human rights position, while also saying that there is a role for the European Union? If Israel wishes to proceed with new and deeper association agreements with the EU, there is a human rights dimension, which the EU would expect Israel to abide by like any other country.

The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate the consulate on its work. As for the peace process, I believe that the United States proposals are the right basis for a settlement, and I hope they will succeed.
The EU has a role to play, particularly in regard to interim economic issues. If it can play a helpful role in any other context, it should do so, on the basis of the US proposals.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I shall be as brief as possible. Was the Prime Minister made aware in


cardiff of the result of the Gallup poll published yesterday, showing that 65 per cent. of the British people oppose entry into EMU, only 33 per cent. support it and 2 per cent. are undecided? Does that not give him pause for thought when he pats himself on the back and congratulates himself on being in time with the process of European unification? He is certainly not in tune with the British people on this issue.

The Prime Minister: I believe that our position on monetary union is right. The hon. Gentleman takes the view—as do a large number of Conservatives—that it should be ruled out in any circumstances. That may be public opinion, but we have to decide what we believe is the right position and then argue for it. He and most of his party are opposed to monetary union on any terms. I think that the British people will take a more pragmatic view and will decide what is in their national economic interest. That is the position that we have adopted. Whether it is supported or not, it is, in my view, the right position.

Mr. David Kidney: The Prime Minister has reminded us that one of the priorities of the United Kingdom presidency was to encourage the European Union to create a more highly skilled work force and a more flexible labour market. Does he agree with me that those reforms are essential for the successful launch of a single currency, and that it is in Britain's interest that the currency is successful, whether we are in it or not? Will he confirm that the United Kingdom will continue to push for those reforms long after we give up the presidency of the European Union, so as to achieve a strong euro in the European Union and in the world?

The Prime Minister: I agree with that entirely. With the measures that have been agreed at Luxembourg and at Cardiff to promote a skilled, adaptable and flexible work force, we are investing in our people, but not burdening business with too much regulation. That is undoubtedly the right way forward. My hon. Friend is right to say that the euro matters to us whether we are inside it or not. Its success is in our national interest.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The people's Europe was the theme of the British presidency at the beginning of the six months. Was that discussed at Cardiff? Does the Prime Minister realise that the people's Parliament in Europe is the European Parliament? Is this not a most extraordinary week in which to launch an attack on that institution, given that he is due to visit it tomorrow and to present the conclusions of the Cardiff Council?

The Prime Minister: I can never work out where the Tory party is coming from nowadays. We discussed the people's Europe: that was the purpose of the political discussion that we had on the first day. I yield to no one in my affection for the European Parliament. Indeed, I shall be addressing it tomorrow, so it is just as well that that is the case.
As many Heads of Government said, it is important that any abuses are rooted out. I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree with that. The President of the European Parliament made a clear statement on behalf of Members

of the European Parliament, saying that he fully accepted and agreed with that approach. That was a responsible attitude to take.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: It is inevitable that one of the consequences of enlargement will be a reduction in the availability of structural funding, because more countries will be sharing the pool of resources. Is it not about time that national Governments joined together to work out a new regime to substitute domestic public expenditure for some of the programmes that at the moment are covered by European structural funding, or many parts of the United Kingdom and other European Union countries will suddenly lose money? Surely we should work out a new framework to enable national Governments to allocate these resources.

The Prime Minister: It is too early to say what the outcome of the negotiations will be. It is difficult to say whether national programmes will have to replace any European programmes that go as a result of the changes. We must ensure that, if any changes are made, the various regions of Britain are properly looked after, but we have a long way to go before the negotiations are over.

Mr. Graham Brady: Much of British manufacturing industry is already in recession, particularly in the north of England, where the Prime Minister and I represent constituencies. Does he accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the wisdom of the Government's current approach of dividing fiscal and monetary policy? Does he believe that it is viable to conduct a European monetary policy without having a co-ordinated European fiscal policy?

The Prime Minister: The European Union has made it clear that it does not think that the EU should try to set tax rates for all its members. The hon. Gentleman asked about manufacturing. Of course, because of the strength of the pound, manufacturing faces problems in our areas and elsewhere, although the latest figures show a small rise in manufacturing output and employment. The worst thing that could happen to manufacturing is boom and bust, and I make no apology for repeating that. The worst setting for British industry would be a return to the days of spurts of growth followed by deep recessions. Unfortunately, that is what happened under the previous Government, and we must try to end that once and for all.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the Prime Minister remember that, at the beginning of his presidency, one of his priorities was the agreement of the negotiating mandate for the European Union for the replacement of Lomé and, with it, the banana protocol? Why has he not been able to find an agreement on that matter?

The Prime Minister: Fortunately, I am well briefed by the Foreign Secretary and am able to tell the hon. Gentleman that on Monday the General Affairs Council will discuss both those matters. We have made progress, but whether we will be able to reach completion will have to wait until Monday's outcome. No doubt, after that,


my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary can write to the hon. Gentleman telling him precisely what has been agreed.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: rose—

Madam Speaker: To show what a softy I am, I call Mr. Alasdair Morgan.

Mr. Morgan: The presidency conclusion document calls on Indonesia to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms in East Timor. Can the Prime Minister say unambiguously whether those freedoms extend to the right to self-determination for East Timor?

The Prime Minister: That is not part of the presidency conclusions. However, we made it clear that we wish the process of negotiation between the Indonesian authorities and people in East Timor to carry on. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), recently visited Indonesia and met some of the East Timorese dissidents who have been detained. The European presidency conclusions contained a strong statement urging the release of political detainees in East Timor and elsewhere. It also urged on the Indonesian Government fundamental economic and political reform. I think that that is as far as it was right for us to go.

Points of Order

Mr. Joe Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am glad that you have allowed me to raise this matter. Tomorrow morning, the Business Committee will sit to timetable part of the Crime and Disorder Bill on the age of consent. That is unique in that a Back Bencher's new clause is being given Government time. I understand that about three hours will be allocated.
Some amendments have been tabled about the age of consent, because many of us feel that a straight yes or no is not entirely appropriate. I need not go into details now, but some people think that, in view of the Utting report on child abuse, there is a case for saying that the age should be levelled at 18 just for children in care. At the end of the three hours, if that is the time that the Business Committee allocates, there will be time for only one vote and amendments, such as the ones that I have mentioned, cannot be voted on. That makes it easy for hon. Members who support one side or the other to keep talking to prevent a vote at the end of the allocated time.
On a Government Bill, timetabling can be agreed between the two sides as a sort of mutual guillotine, and that has been acceptable only since the general election: it was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, of which I was a member. However, if one Back Bencher's new clause is timetabled, surely it discriminates in favour of that Back Bencher if another Back Bencher's amendment or new clause cannot be voted on. Before the Business Committee sits and the motion goes on the Order Paper to be set in tablets of stone, I suggest that the Business Committee should make sure in some way that there is enough time for other amendments and new clauses to be called, even if that has to be stated on the Order Paper. In other words, it would be unfair to discriminate in favour of one Back Bencher and against another. As that is a precedent, I ask you to rule on it.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The problem is that, when the guillotine falls, amendments that have been selected by you cannot be voted on, which differs from what happened the past. Outstanding amendments that have been selected may not be debated, but they ought to be voted on. We had that situation last week, when, even though a large number of Members wanted to vote on it, the subject of tuition fees could not be voted on, because there had been no debate on it. Although the amendment had been selected by you, the matter could not be voted on. The situation highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is relevant to next week's debate.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There are amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I bow to the expertise in House matters of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), but I emphasise that you are being invited to rule on a most important issue. It is important that Members should have the chance to have more than a yes or no vote on the issue.

Madam Speaker: I have the impression that I am being lobbied by Back Benchers. The Business


Committee meets tomorrow. I listened with great interest and seriousness to what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said, but I cannot give a ruling, because the matter is primarily one for the Business Committee. However, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said and see whether I can be of any help. I understand his point and recognise its importance.

Disposal and Re-use of White Goods

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to mitigate the environmental problems of disposal of white goods by means of a point-of-sale deposit system to encourage re-use or responsible disposal; and for connected purposes.
The House might be curious about what white goods are. "White goods" is a generic term for large electrical appliances which covers refrigerators, freezers, cookers, washing machines, driers and dishwashers. Such items are a great boon to households when they work, but a great curse when they do not and subsequently prove not to be repairable. Although most machines end up being recycled to the extent that they eventually arrive at the scrap metal dealers, they often get there by complicated routes and create substantial environmental damage in the process.
We know that more than 1 million refrigerators, almost 2 million washing machines and 500,000 dishwashers are purchased each year. Estimates vary about the quantity of such machines that are discarded each year, but about 200,000 to 300,000 tonnes of scrap engines, casing and coolants is a fair estimate. Many machines are disposed of responsibly, with about 50 per cent. of all purchases of new machines offering an opportunity to exchange the old one with the retailer. From direct investigation, I know that such returns are dealt with responsibly, but by no means everyone exchanges the old machine and, in any case, many people either buy their machines from dealers who do not offer that service, or buy second-hand.
Many end-of-life machines are at large and they are easy to spot: they are in people's garages, on wasteland or on roadside verges. They pose a danger to children who play in them and almost always require collection at a later date, often by the local authority at public expense. The result in respect of fridges and freezers is that most of the coolant chlorofluorocarbons they contain will disappear into the atmosphere. A parliamentary written reply which I received estimated that 300 tonnes or two thirds of the total CFCs in redundant machines enter the atmosphere each year, which contributes to the problem of ozone depletion. The good news is that CFCs are being replaced in newer fridges by hydrofluorocarbons, which do not deplete the ozone layer. The bad news is that HFCs are something like 12 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. Another recent parliamentary answer said that HFCs will account for 1 per cent. of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, but some people suggest the figure is substantially higher. If we are to make progress on our emission targets, we need to take such figures very seriously.
Even if we were able to persuade people not to leave their white goods on verges but to dispose of them responsibly, we as a nation would still be missing an opportunity to save resources by reusing parts of redundant white goods or repairing those goods for further use. In Liverpool, there is an excellent organisation called CREATE which does just that. It takes in redundant machines—in many cases from companies such as Dixons which operate a take-back policy—and either repairs them or cannibalises them for parts. Only then is the residue scrapped after the safe drainage of CFCs or HFCs.


Although CREATE estimates that about 25 per cent. of machines are potentially reusable when people put them out for council collection, by the time anyone can get to them at the council tip, only 3 per cent. are still recoverable. In other words, a string of CREATEs around the country could make an enormous difference to the recovery of machines which people want to dispose of, but which still work or are repairable. CREATE is a superb organisation. Another organisation—RESPOND in London—is now following in its wake, but we must be realistic and acknowledge that such organisations are only scratching the surface.
All this is happening against the background of the development of a proposed European directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment—known in Euro-speak by its acronym WEEE. This directive, which is certainly on its way, will require each nation to establish effective schemes to deal with the problem—for example, perhaps by involving producers in schemes to dispose of their machines when they are finished with.
The likely effect is that producers will increase the price of machines to take the directive into account, but it is unclear exactly how it will work. Will purchasers have to bring a used machine to the shop before they can buy a new one? If a Zanussi fridge is found in a lay-by, will Zanussi or its agents be required to come and get it? Above all, the directive does not seem to contain any mechanism to persuade the public to take part in responsible disposal and reuse.
The Bill offers a way out by giving the product a separate value once its use for its original purpose is over. In that way, the value always goes with the machine, whoever owns it, and the incentive to redeem that value is constant. The Bill proposes that retailers of white goods should be required to lay a deposit on new appliances at the point of sale. This would be at a level to be agreed, but it would typically amount to about 10 per cent. of the purchase price—let us say about £20 to £30.
The purchaser would be issued with a deposit note which would effectively act as a logbook for the life of the appliance. Should the machine be sold on by the original purchaser in full working order, the logbook would of course go with it. At the end of the machine's life, it could be encashed on presentation when the machine is collected for scrap by a local authority or given for parts recovery to a voluntary organisation or business.
The value of the deposit would be substantial enough to encourage encashment by the consumer and would clearly increase as an incentive as the capital value of the product decreased. The retailer of the white goods would have the responsibility of issuing the logbook and collecting the deposits, which could be passed on with the minimum of bureaucracy to a central agency, perhaps set up on a similar basis to Entrust, the agency that administers the distribution of landfill levy grants. Existing organisations such as Waste Watch could, I believe, perform this function relatively easily.
The central agency would be responsible for reimbursing the agencies paying out on redeemed logbooks and for assisting the establishment of bodies able to receive end-of-life white goods for refurbishment, cannibalisation or disposal. The financing of the system should be feasible at zero cost to the Exchequer, as the time lag between receipt of deposits and their eventual redemption allows income to be obtained from investment. Furthermore, not every logbook for every machine will finally be redeemed.
The system should therefore allow for the financing of a handling charge to retailers, the administration of the agency responsible for operating the scheme, and for considerable underwriting of organisations such as CREATE which could establish end-of-use bodies in the way I described.
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the very real benefits that the scheme would produce, which I can summarise. First, the scheme would introduce an incentive to counter dumping or storage. Whenever possible, goods or parts of goods that can be recycled would be recycled. Secondly, the scheme would establish an incentive to encourage disposal of white goods through agencies that will undertake to reuse them or to dispose of them in an environmentally friendly manner. Thirdly, the scheme would establish—through purchase of the products themselves—a source of support for organisations undertaking recycling of white goods. Fourthly, the negative environmental impact of the release of CFCs or HFCs from refrigerants would be greatly reduced. Lastly, the scheme would ensure that a substantial element of bulk in the waste stream is diverted, rather than subsequently recovered after disposal.
Some people have said that implementing the proposals in my Bill could be inflationary. However, we have to remember that the EU directive will come, and that manufacturers inevitably will put up their prices to cope with it. We should bear in mind also the fact that there is a better way of dealing with the matter—and I think that my Bill offers it.
I therefore hope that the House will agree to give my Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. Martin Linton, Ms Margaret Moran, Miss Melanie Johnson, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Martin Salter, Mr. Tom Brake, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Mr. Mark Oaten and Mr. Stephen Hesford.

DISPOSAL AND RE-USE OF WHITE GOODS

Dr. Alan Whitehead accordingly presented a Bill to mitigate the environmental problems of disposal of white goods by means of a point-of-sale deposit system to encourage re-use or responsible disposal; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 205].

Orders of the Day — Human Rights Bill [Lords]

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 3 June].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 5

RIGHT OF CROWN TO INTERVENE

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 3, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—

'(a) a Minister of the Crown (or a person nominated by him);
(b) a member of the Scottish Executive.'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in page 3, line 33, leave out from 'Crown' to end of line 34.
No. 20, in page 3, line 34, at end insert
'or
(c) any other public authority which can show that it would be affected by such a declaration of incompatibility.'.
Government amendments Nos. 121 to 124.

Mr. O'Brien: In moving Government amendment 120, it may be convenient if I also speak to the amendments grouped with it, starting with Opposition amendments Nos. 19 and 20. However, it may be helpful if I first explained the intention behind clause 5.
The purpose of clause 5 is to give the Crown the right to intervene in proceedings in which the court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility. The need for the Crown to be given that right flows from the importance of such a declaration. It is right that the Government—who answer for the United Kingdom in proceedings at Strasbourg and will have responsibility for considering whether to propose to Parliament the amendment of legislation in respect of which the declaration is made—should have the opportunity to make any relevant arguments to the court before it decides whether to make a declaration. The need for the Government to be able to make such arguments is the reason why clause 5(1) entitles the Crown to be given notice of such a case, and why paragraph (a) of clause 5(2) entitles a Minister to be joined as a party to the proceedings.
Paragraph (b) of clause 5(2), which amendment No. 19 seeks to remove, currently permits
a person nominated by a Minister of the Crown
to be joined to the proceedings. There is good reason for including that provision, and therefore for opposing the amendment.
It will sometimes be more appropriate for a person nominated by a Minister, rather than the Minister himself, to be so joined—for example, when there is a public

interest in relation to a private Act. It may be more appropriate also in cases relating to—to name but a few—Measures of the Church Assembly or Measures of the General Synod; regulators of public utilities; or, perhaps, the Director General of Fair Trading. In such cases, the appropriate person to intervene—the person who is best able to make arguments on the legislation in question—may well not be the relevant Minister.
However, I see several difficulties with the alternative proposed in amendment No. 20. First, it focuses not on those who are primarily responsible for and familiar with the legislation, but on those whose actions are governed by it. Secondly, it is ambiguous. What does it mean when it refers to a public authority being "affected by" such a declaration?
As we explained in Committee, a declaration does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the relevant legislative provision. It is only if Government and Parliament decide to amend the legislation that anyone would be affected. So interested parties should take up their cases with them rather than with the courts.
Alternatively, if "affected" were construed in another way—for example, to cover anyone affected by the provision of legislation rather than the prospect of a declaration —innumerable organisations might satisfy the requirement. Clearly, that would create an impossible situation. Arguments over who was eligible to be joined would be interminable, and the proceedings might grind to a halt with so many parties involved. That might not be bad for the Opposition, but it would be bad law and bad for the courts. Why do the Opposition think that the entitlement to be joined should be confined to public authorities? Legislation can affect non-public bodies, and courts can make declarations of incompatibility in cases that do not involve a public authority.
The amendment may be intended to elicit information, and in due course the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) may describe it as such,. However, its effect would be to undermine the Bill. In the light of my comments, I hope that, in due course and after full consideration, the Opposition will not press amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
I turn now to Government amendment No. 120. Clause 5 provides that, where the court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, a Minister of the Crown or a person nominated by him is entitled to be joined as a party to the proceedings. It is envisaged that that will remain the position in all cases, but in Scottish cases which relate to devolved matters, Scottish Ministers should also be entitled to be joined as a party.
The purpose of amendment No. 120 is therefore to enable a member of the Scottish Executive to be joined as a party to proceedings in addition to a Minister of the Crown or a person nominated by him where the court is considering making a declaration. The detailed arrangements for notice to be given will be set out in the rules of court that are provided for in clause 5.
Government Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 are technical amendments to clause 5. Clause 5(1) entitles the Crown to be notified when a court is considering making a declaration of incompatibility. Clause 5(2) currently provides that a Minister of the Crown or a person nominated by him is entitled to be joined as a party to proceedings
on an application made to the court".


As the Crown is entitled to be joined as a party, there is no need for an application to be made. Amendment No. 121 accordingly amends clause 5(2) so that the requirement is simply for the Crown "giving notice" to the court. Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 make consequential changes to the wording of clause 5(3). Amendment No. 124 likewise makes consequential changes to clause 5(4).

Mr. James Clappison: The Minister was quite correct to anticipate the exploratory nature of amendments Nos. 19 and 20. It was useful to have had the opportunity to listen to his remarks before making my case for the amendments. His speech was helpful, and clarified some of the issues.
The Minister was right to say that clause 5 gives the Crown the right to intervene in proceedings when a court is considering whether or not to make a declaration of incompatibility. We agree. It is right that the Crown should be able to be party to the proceedings in such cases, not least because, as the Minister said, the Crown would ultimately be responsible if the case went to Strasbourg.
We agree that, when a court is considering making a declaration of incompatibility, it is right that the Crown should be a party to those proceedings so that its views may be heard before the court makes that determination. Our concerns arise out of our agreement on that point—I do not want to put it too strongly, as these are exploratory amendments —and are reflected in amendment No. 19. We wish to know a little more about the persons who may be nominated by the Crown to represent the Crown.
I listened carefully to the Minister's opening statement. It is true that he gave some examples of cases in which persons would be nominated by the Crown in these proceedings. However, I have two questions arising out of his comments. First, will the Minister spell out clearly what criteria will be used to decide whether a Minister should be a party to the proceedings or a person should be nominated by the Crown? He provided some examples, but it was not entirely evident on what principle that decision would be based.
My second point also flows from our agreement on the fundamental right of the Crown to be joined to the proceedings. When a person is nominated by the Minister in the circumstances envisaged by the clause, upon whose behalf will that person act? Will such people take their instructions from the Crown? Will they reflect the Crown's concerns in the submissions that they make? What other interests may such people represent? What will happen in the event of a conflict of interest? Could a Crown nominee also represent another party to the proceedings?
We seek reassurance that the person nominated by the Crown will act both on the instructions of the Crown and clearly on its behalf. There must be no other conflict of interest; the Crown's views must be heard when the court decides whether to make a declaration of incompatibility. We seek to explore those concerns in amendment No. 19.
The Minister has not fully satisfied our concerns outlined in amendment No. 20. We want to explore whether other public authorities can be part of the same proceedings. At this stage, I do not want to anticipate the

debate that we shall have on clause 6 regarding the definition of public authorities. Suffice it to say, for the purposes of the discussion on this clause, that that definition could range widely.
Many bodies may be deemed public authorities for the purposes of the Bill. We envisage that, if a breach of a convention right is alleged against a public authority, it might affect many other public authorities of the same nature. An obvious example that springs to mind is the Churches. A Church may be a party to the proceedings, and the principle applying to it may affect many other Churches, faith communities and so on. We are concerned to explore whether their voices should also be heard as parties to the proceedings.
I take the Minister's point about seeking to avoid complexity, and joining many plaintiffs to the proceedings. However, he will know that it is commonplace in civil proceedings for one plaintiff to represent a number of others in cases where there is a common interest. For example, in personal injury cases, one victim may represent many other victims whose cases have broadly the same factual background.
We want to explore whether the same procedure could be employed here, so that we could hear the voices of all public authorities that may be affected by a particular decision. At the end of the day, such decisions could be very significant for the public authorities concerned. A great deal could be at stake, and we are concerned to explore whether their voices may be heard also. On that basis, I commend our amendments. I should like the Minister to explain those issues before I respond.

5 pm

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to add a little in support of amendments Nos. 19 and 20. I was interested in what the Minister said, but it may be sensible to ask several more questions, which he has not yet adequately answered.
I understand that the prime purpose of amendment No. 19 is to find out a little more about the circumstances in which the Government anticipate that Ministers will nominate other persons to be joined as a party to proceedings. The Minister gave some examples. One can understand that some of the regulators—the Director General of Fair Trading and the like—may have such an important status. The debate raises the question of the extent to which the Government anticipate that public authorities comprise bodies beyond a Minister's ambit. On that rests quite an important question.
If the Government believe that bodies outside a Minister's ambit are very often likely to require to be joined to proceedings, and therefore will require nomination by Ministers, would it not be better—linking to amendment No. 20—to clearly define a public authority for these purposes? I understand that we should not anticipate the debate on clause 6, and that, to an extent, that point takes us on to clause 6, but if one were to use the term "public authority" in clause 6 more definitively, the point would relate to clause 5. Rather than leaving the point vague, there should be a clearer definition.
Very often these days, Ministers proceed by way of enabling legislation. In this context, the provision is not even enabling. It simply gives Ministers discretion to nominate persons —apparently without any definition of scope—to be joined to proceedings. As far as I can see,


such persons are not even defined as those who have the character of a public authority. It would be useful if the Minister explained how widely the Government expect the power to be used.
The debate also raises the question of how many times Ministers expect that it will be necessary to seek to join proceedings, and in what circumstances. How regularly would Ministers need to be part of those proceedings? If other bodies were to be joined to such proceedings only very infrequently, it would be perfectly possible for Ministers to act on behalf of public authorities—if the definition of them is narrowly drawn. There is no doubt that, in order to protect the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading, which derive from legislation and which would, as the Minister said, have to be amended by order, the President of the Board of Trade or Ministers would be perfectly competent in acting on behalf of the director general.
The Minister has not adequately explained under what circumstances it would be necessary for persons other than the Minister to be entitled to act on his behalf. I understand that it would be much more convenient for Ministers to rely on public authorities to do the job if such instances occurred frequently. However, if we are considering relatively few instances, Ministers could perfectly possibly act on behalf of public authorities, especially if such authorities were relatively narrowly constrained.
A second aspect of what the Minister said seemed to be quite wrong. If I understood it correctly, the heart of his argument was that anybody who may have an interest and be affected by proceedings before a court seeking a declaration of incompatibility would have recourse to the process by which any declaration of incompatibility is followed up by the introduction of an order subject to affirmative resolution. The Minister rightly said that a declaration of incompatibility does not in itself lead to prevention of activity under the legislation to which it applies.
I may be misunderstanding that point, but it seems possible for a court to act directly on secondary legislation; to declare where it is not compatible with the European convention by virtue of primary legislation. As the Bill states, the court can quash or intervene in respect of secondary legislation in order to make it compatible with the European convention without a subsequent statutory instrument or order coming before the House.
My understanding is that, if that is the case, there are many instances in which the detail of the application of legislation under statutory instruments could potentially be declared incompatible by a court, and, in effect, amended in its working practices to bring the secondary legislation into line with the terms of the European convention directly, without subsequent recourse to Parliament through further statutory instruments.
I acknowledge that, in that context, we would be dealing not with the high policy of legislation but with its detail, but it is precisely in relation to such detail that bodies other than Ministers—perhaps a wider range of public authorities that operate under the detail of legislation, especially under the detail of secondary legislation made in pursuance of the intentions of Ministers—may often have detailed reasons to want to intervene and be joined as a party to proceedings, so as to explain how the declaration of incompatibility would affect them.
We have not arrived at that debate yet, but, if a wider definition could be made of the public authorities affected by a substantial amount of the secondary legislation that could be directly subject to the decision of a court on a declaration of incompatibility, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will have raised an important issue with our amendments—an issue to which the Minister has not yet given us an adequate response.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for telling us that the intention behind his amendments is, by and large, to explore the issues raised by clause 5, and that he broadly agrees with the proposition that the Crown should be able to be a party to the proceedings in relation to a declaration of incompatibility.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to go beyond the examples I cited, and to give a few more. During his submission and that of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), reference was made, for example, to the Church. I know that some hon. Members have raised the idea that, at some stage, an issue might be raised in relation to the General Synod, or to the Church Assembly, which was its predecessor, and that it might then be possible for a Minister to decide that it was not for the Government but for another body to provide the information.
In making a nomination, the Government would have to consider the criteria as to what was the public interest in the Government's deciding to nominate a particular organisation to be present during the proceedings. Is there an interest in the court's being better informed, in that that organisation could perhaps put forward information to the court that may allow it to make a better decision?

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: Let me explore the argument a little further; then 1 will give way to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
The issue for the Minister is fairly narrow: what is the public interest in having a person nominated by the Minister as a party to the proceedings giving information to the court? That person is there not so much to challenge one side of the argument or the other, as to ensure that the court makes the right decision, with all the necessary information and arguments before it.
The person nominated will speak, in a sense, in his or her own capacity. Such people will be joined by the Minister who regards it as being in the public interest, and in the interests of a proper examination of the issues, that that person be joined. The Minister will decide who the person should be. The criterion is simply who the best person is to raise the arguments about whether legislation is compatible. A nominated person will be joined in his own capacity and would be acting on his own behalf—not on behalf of the Government. If the measures of the Synod were being considered, it is expected that the Synod itself would be nominated by the Minister if it were decided that that was in the public interest. The judgment would be made on those criteria.

Mr. Clappison: I was going to ask the Minister about that precise issue. If a case involved the Churches,


would one of the existing parties to the proceedings—such as a Church—be nominated and, if not, what other organisation would be nominated? What happens if there is a conflict of interest between that of the party that the Minister has nominated to represent the Crown, and the Crown's own view?

Mr. O'Brien: It is anticipated that, in considering whether to nominate a particular individual or organisation, the Minister will take into account whether it is in the interests of the Government, Parliament and the nation that the issues should be aired before the court. The issue is not to join the party as a partisan in the case. We want to make sure that all the arguments which need to be put are put before the court, and information which may be relevant should be made available to the court.
It is not expected that the Government or the Minister would take such action on a large number of occasions. Having the power there—particularly in the sort of cases I have mentioned, and in cases such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who referred to the Director General of Fair Trading—is important. It is quite proper for such people to be nominated by the Minister.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The amendments from the Government and the Opposition are incompatible. The Government are trying to widen the ability to intervene, or to nominate somebody to intervene, and to remove the discretion of the court to prevent such a nomination from being acceded to. Previously, it had to be by application, and it will now be by notice. We are seeking to widen the criteria of people who might be able to intervene if they feel that their rights are affected.
What concerns me is that there may well be occasions when individuals or groups feel that a judgment will impinge on them very much. They might have an entitlement—certainly under the ordinary rules of court—to intervene and to be allowed to be joined. How will they be affected by this position?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also raised those points, and was concerned that persons who might be affected by a declaration of incompatibility and any subsequent change would be able to be a party to the proceedings. Our view is that it should be a matter for the Government, the Minister and those nominated by him to inform the court's arguments and decisions. It should not be the right of persons who would not otherwise be able to be joined to the proceedings—merely because a declaration of incompatibility has been considered—to make themselves a party. If they have another locus to join in the proceedings, they can pursue that in the normal manner. We do not propose to create new mechanisms for parties to be joined.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire explored that matter further, and asked about primary legislation and secondary legislation. In terms of primary legislation, he is right to say that we envisage that an individual or organisation would approach the Government, as it is a decision for the Government whether to act on the

declaration of incompatibility. In a sense, nobody is affected until the Government have made that legislative change.
Quite rightly, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked about secondary legislation. Our view is that, if we were to create the circumstances in which anyone who might be affected by a decision could somehow parachute in and create a new situation in the court, it would lead to chaos. If they have the right to be a party to the proceedings, they should, in the normal course of a civil case, become a party to the proceedings. That would not be the effect in a criminal matter. We must be careful not to create new opportunities for persons to become involved in criminal matters.
The best way for persons interested in the outcome of a secondary legislation matter to proceed is that the Government will have to consider how they deal with any decision in relation to secondary legislation by a court. At that point, it is right that any person or organisation interested in any change that the Government may or may not be considering should deal with the Government and Ministers.
5.15 pm
The opportunities are there. It may be that those involved have the ability to become a party to a civil proceeding. They almost certainly would not, and should not, have the ability to become a party to a criminal proceeding. In the normal course of events, if they are able to become a party to a proceeding, it is a matter for them to do so. Those who would not have the ability to become a party to a proceeding must deal with the Government afterwards.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also touched on the matter of definitions of public authorities. We are moving to that matter, and—if he will forgive me—it is probably better if we deal with it later. I think that I have dealt with most of the points raised, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will not press his amendments.

Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I am grateful for his full response. This has been a useful exercise, and we have taken matters a little further through this exploratory amendment. However, I am still not entirely satisfied with where matters stand. We have found out a bit more about the circumstances in which the Government envisage the power to nominate somebody being used, but we are not clear why they want to do so.
I am also not entirely satisfied about why it would not be simpler for the Minister simply to nominate someone to represent the Crown in all such proceedings. I draw some reassurance from the fact that the Minister said that there will be few proceedings in which it is envisaged that someone will be nominated to act on behalf of the Crown. However, even in those few proceedings, there may be a risk of a conflict of interest arising. The Minister knows full well that, in such litigation, it is not always possible to foresee where a conflict of interest will arise. There are occasions when there appears to be no conflict of interest at the beginning of litigation, but one develops during litigation.
We are concerned that the Crown's voice is heard, and that it represents the public interest when a court is considering whether to make a declaration of


incompatibility. The public interest, as represented by the Crown, must not be affected by any other considerations which another party to the proceedings might well have. We are speaking up for the public interest in this matter. I have listened to what the Minister has said, and, to make progress, I do not propose to press the amendment.
Nor do I propose to press amendment No. 20, although the question of litigation affecting large numbers of public authorities—the Church is a classic example—should be dealt with. We have heard concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere about vexatious litigants who are queuing up to bring charges against the Churches. 1 do not want to go too far down that road at the moment, but I take that as justification for the amendment. However, in the interests of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman: Order. Procedurally, that is not necessary, as I am about to put the Question on a Government amendment on which the others hang.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 121, in page 3, line 35, leave out
'an application made to the court'

and insert 'giving notice'.

No. 122, in page 3, line 37, leave out 'An application' and insert 'Notice'.

No. 123, in page 3, line 37, leave out 'made' and insert 'given'.

No. 124, in page 3, line 40, leave out
'an application under this section'

and insert
'a notice under subsection (2)'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

ACTS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 4, line 7, at beginning insert—
`( ) A public authority is any person or body which—

(a) is established and regulated by statute; or
(b) has ministerial appointments on its governing body;

and for the purposes of this Act such a person or body under paragraph (a) above is only a public body when acting in the discharge of its statutory functions.'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in page 4, line 17, leave out from 'court' to 'the' in line 22 and insert `and'.
No. 28, in page 4, line 24, leave out 'or tribunal'.
No. 29, in page 4, line 24, leave out from second 'court' to 'when' in line 25.
No. 30, in page 4, line 27, leave out
'by virtue only of subsection (3)(b)

No. 31, in page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
'(7) For the purposes of this Act, the private acts of a public authority shall not be regarded as incompatible with Convention rights'.
No. 34, in page 4, line 31, leave out
`by virtue only of subsection (3)(b)'.
No. 142, in page 4, line 32, at end insert—
'( ) A court or tribunal shall not determine that a person is a public authority for the purpose of subsection (3) (b) if in relation to a complaint based on similar facts made against the United Kingdom in respect of an act, decision or omission of that person the European Court of Human Rights would declare a complaint to be incompatible with the Convention under Article 27(2).'.
No. 143, in page 4, line 32, at end insert—
'( ) A court or tribunal shall determine that an act is private in nature for the purpose of subsection (7) if in relation to that act the European Court of Human Rights would declare a complaint based on similar facts to be incompatible with the Convention under Article 27(2).'
No. 93, in clause 21, page 13, leave out lines 43 and 44.

Sir Norman Fowler: The amendment was originally tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). In so far as it relates to the press, I declare an interest as non-executive chairman of Regional Independent Media, which publishes newspapers both in Yorkshire and in Lancashire, although regrettably not in Blackburn. As the Committee knows, there is more than one view in the newspaper industry on the issues surrounding the clause.
The amendment goes far beyond the press and the Press Complaints Commission; it relates to the definition of a public authority. Clause 6 makes it
unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
However, there is substantial vagueness in the definition of a public authority. Clause 6(3) states that a
'public authority' includes…a court or tribunal, and…any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
The notes to clauses say that the clause proceeds on the basis that some authorities are so obviously public that it is not necessary expressly to define them. Indeed, in the other place, the Lord Chancellor said:
Clause 6 is designed to apply not only to obvious public authorities such as government departments and the police, but also to bodies which are public in certain respects but not others."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1232.]
Unsurprisingly, the vagueness of such language has led to substantial argument about what is and what is not covered. Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, asked the obvious question—what are functions of a public nature? In the other place, he said that central Government, local government, the police, immigration officers, prisons, courts and tribunals were covered, but that he found it difficult to understand the White Paper guidance that
companies responsible for areas of activity which were previously within the public sector, such as the privatised utilities",
also exercised public functions. He asked:
What has the fact that the activity was originally in the public sector got to do with the definition that we find in the Bill"?— [Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582. c. 1293.]


He wondered whether there would be any difference between the BBC and ITV companies or commercial radio. Indeed, he took the view that all of them were included in the definition of a public authority. He asked where the process would end—he wanted to know whether Safeway or, indeed, Asda were covered, as they self-evidently conducted business of a public nature. He was led to the conclusion that there must be a better way in which to define what is meant by a public authority. The amendment seeks to address that issue.
Responding to the concerns raised on Second Reading in the other place, the Home Office Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that he anticipated that the BBC would be a public authority, that Channel 4 might be a public authority and that commercial television stations might not be public authorities. He said:
Some authorities plainly exercise wholly public functions; others do not. There is no difficulty here."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1309.]
My response to that is, with respect,
Up to a point, Lord Copper",
as he then went on to discuss newspapers. His view was, subject to the proviso that this was a matter for the courts to determine in due course, that a newspaper was not a public authority. Indeed, much of the debate has been about that issue, particularly the status of the Press Complaints Commission.

Mr. Lansley: I am listening with care to my right hon. Friend. Before he moves on to the press, will he agree that it is remarkable that, in the other place, a Minister abandoned to the future jurisprudence of UK courts the definition of the scope of the Bill? Does not that leave us in a difficult position in examining the Bill?

Sir Norman Fowler: That is exactly my point—my hon. Friend is entirely correct.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: On that point, I was musing why, when the BBC and, presumably, Channel 4 and ITV, are public authorities, ITV companies probably are not— on newspapers, the matter is not clear. From my recollection of my days at ITV, its functions had a public service element, so one would suppose that its activities could be drawn into the ambit of the Bill.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Home Secretary, with his usual clarity, will be able to guide the Committee on those questions, although I am not sure that the Government have so far entirely succeeded in giving clear guidance—we look forward to what the Home Secretary has to say.
My hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) point to the vagueness that surrounds the matter—none of us is clear about what the legislation means, especially as it seems that it will partly be interpreted only later. As they suggested, it is not that the press is the only issue or that the Press Complaints Commission is the only body that will be affected by the Bill; the status of the press merely serves to illustrate the difficulties with which the amendment is concerned.
Clause 1 sets out the convention rights that are given effect by the Bill, including articles 8 and 10. The trouble is that those articles could be in conflict. Article 8 concerns

the right to respect for private and family life; it states that a public authority should not, except in certain circumstances, interfere with the exercise of that right. Article 10 sets out a right to freedom of expression and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority. Somehow, a balance must be struck between what we can call the rights to privacy and free speech and free reporting—we cannot burke the fact that there is a conflict between the two articles.
The Burgess and Maclean case of the 1950s provides a practical example of what I mean. As the Committee will recall, the two British traitors suddenly left the country—they left alone, but Maclean left behind his wife. One newspaper, the Daily Express, took a close interest in Mrs. Maclean, believing that she might join her husband behind the iron curtain. There was a row and the Daily Express was roundly condemned, not least in the other place, for its breach of privacy and its intrusion. Ultimately, of course, Mrs. Maclean did exactly as the newspaper suspected and slipped away to Russia. I do not want to argue the merits of the case. Suffice it to say that there is a true illustration of the real conflict between the two articles.
5.30 pm
So, not surprisingly, a debate has centred on the Press Complaints Commission. Clause 6 provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right. Does that include the commission? The Government's view was that it was exempt from the provisions of the Bill—or, to put it more precisely, that was the Lord Chancellor's view. According to a report on 1 December 1997 in The Guardian—a paper in which I always have the greatest trust—the Lord Chancellor was involved in what the newspaper called a "lively argument" with the now beleaguered Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who warned the Lord Chancellor that the new law could damage press freedom and interfere with the commission's judgments. According to The Guardian, that argument was shot down in flames by the Lord Chancellor on the grounds that the Secretary of State was a layman and that he was an experienced lawyer. The newspaper reports the Lord Chancellor as telling senior newspaper executives that there was no question of the Press Complaints Commission being affected by the law.
Indeed, the Lord Chancellor sought to give reassurance on Second Reading in the other place when he said—perhaps a less than resounding phrase—
I am a member of a Government who, as a whole, give the highest value to upholding the freedom of the press."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1229.]
I am not entirely sure what he meant by "as a whole". I suspect that he meant except when the Government's interests are affected. He went on to say, directly to the press—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Where?

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall have to look that up if the right hon. Gentleman really wants to know. The Lord Chancellor went on to say to the press:
I understand your concerns but let me assure you that press freedom will be in safe hands with our British judges and with the judges of the European Court.


There might be agreement on both sides of the Committee that "safe in your hands" is a political expression that should be avoided these days by any wise politician because, only a few weeks after the Second Reading debate, on 18 November, David Pannick QC wrote an important article in The Times suggesting that the Press Complaints Commission was a public authority. On 24 November, the Lord Chancellor did a spectacular legal U-turn and accepted that his advice had been wrong. In a press notice he said:
It is possible that the Press Complaints Commission will be held to be a public authority under the Human Rights Bill when it becomes law. I had earlier thoughts that it would probably not, but an Opinion given to the PCC by David Pannick QC persuaded me that it probably will be.
However, he added:
If so this is good news for the press because the courts will regard the PCC as the primary body to provide effective protection to people who suffer from press abuses.
He went on to add the slightly dubious proposition that he and Mr. Pannick
have both been telling the press exactly the same thing.
Those assurances did not entirely settle the matter with the public, the press or, perhaps above all, with the Press Complaints Commission. As the noble Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the commission, pointed out, if his adjudications on matters of privacy could be subject to subsequent action by the courts, his task of trying to resolve differences would no longer be a practicable proposition. The courts would be able to intervene after the commission's work had finished. He added that his chances of making self-regulation work to the benefit of ordinary people and without cost to them would be minimal.
The point being made was that the Press Complaints Commission seeks to mediate and reach agreement. The fear is that, if it becomes a body with new procedures to fine newspapers and to introduce a mechanism for prior restraint of newspapers shown to be on the point of breaching someone's privacy, the whole nature of the commission will change. Certainly it can be argued, as some have, that that should be the case, but I do not think that anyone would seriously argue that we should do all that and change all that entirely by accident. That again is what lies behind my fears about the Bill.

Miss Kirkbride: Perhaps this is a question for the Home Secretary, but you—

Hon. Members: Right hon. Friend.

Sir Norman Fowler: I will answer to anything.

Miss Kirkbride: My right hon. Friend might like to muse on whether, if a judge takes that decision, that judgment could then be overtaken if another judge decided in another case that some of the capacities of the Press Complaints Commission should be considered those of a public authority under the relevant legislation. How moveable a feast will it be?

Sir Norman Fowler: As my hon. Friend said, that is really for the Home Secretary to explain. As far as the chairman of the PCC is concerned, it raises the fear and doubt that it will be bypassed and that people will go

straight to the courts. I am trying to be as neutral as I can—I have my own views on this—and would merely say that, if we are to make changes of that sort, they should be made deliberately and explicitly and in the knowledge of what we are doing. We do not want to drift into such a change.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: To clarify the thinking of the chairman of the PCC, if possible, was he saying that the commission felt that it could not be effective if there were a potential legal remedy? If he was, it would seem to rule the PCC out of considering, for example, potential defamation cases. I am not clear whether its case was expressed as widely as that.

Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman must make up his own mind and he will have read the debates in the other place as I have. Basically, my noble Friend Lord Wakeham said that, first, there was a danger that the whole nature of the PCC would be changed with the right to fine or order compensation, which it does not have at the moment—the idea of prior restraint is certainly entirely different. The second danger would be that no one would take the slightest bit of notice of the commission in any event, but would simply bypass it and go to the courts. Why deal with the middle man, so to speak? My noble Friend had a number of concerns.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend has set out a number of criteria against which a change might be made—I think he included words such as "coherent", "deliberate" and "carefully thought through". Is he not asking rather a lot? This Government have so far made few changes that could possibly match up to any of those criteria.

Sir Norman Fowler: I do not want to enter into such deliberate party political banter at this point because I am optimistic that the Home Secretary will agree with everything that I have said and accept my amendment. I shall leave it at that.
Let me go back to the danger that I see. As I understand it, the Government are not only in favour on the whole of press freedom, but are, on the whole, opposed to introducing a new general law of privacy. It must follow that they do not want to achieve that by the back door. They do not want to make law explicitly, but nor do they want it to slip in. I agree with the Government's intention not to introduce a general law. Newspapers are there to expose; that is their function. At their best, the media expose crooks, spies and fraudsters, although at their worst they intrude into private lives when no public interest is served. The difficulty is obviously in drawing a line.
The law should certainly protect the public against phone tapping or interception of mail, but it should not attempt to judge taste, on which the public are capable of reaching their own conclusions. I do not think that public opinion is overwhelmingly conclusive on the question of a general law of privacy. A House of Commons reference sheet in November 1997 said that The Guardian had published the fascinating finding of an ICM opinion poll that 90 per cent. of respondents favoured a privacy law, but 53 per cent. felt it should not protect politicians from


media investigation into their private lives. That is a curious proposition, although it is doubtless a true sign of public opinion.
The point is that the uncertainty surrounding clause 6 of the Bill means we are in danger of making changes that are neither intended nor explicit. Arguments can be, and are, made in favour of changing the Press Complaints Commission. That seems to be what the Lord Chancellor was advocating outside Parliament earlier this year in an interview with the New Statesman . He advocated a PCC that would have powers to fine newspapers that breached the commission's privacy guidelines, or, more accurately, to award compensation. The Lord Chancellor appeared also to advocate a mechanism for prior restraint of newspapers that were shown to be on the point of breaching someone's privacy without justification.
It is argued that such change would avoid the danger of people using the courts—the danger I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—rather than the PCC to pursue grievances. That danger has also been pointed out by the constitutional lawyer Sir William Wade. The price of that, however, is that the PCC would become a different animal. A few newspapers, including The Guardian, accept and support that idea; others, such as The Times, say that the PCC would not and could not survive the strain of its new obligations, and that not many newspapers would voluntarily co-operate with it. I do not want to argue which of those cases is correct, but to change the whole nature of the PCC by accident and without sensible consultation would not be good law making.
The amendment would bring greater certainty to the definition of a public authority. We have sought to limit the bodies or people covered. A body would be a public authority established and regulated by statute, or one that had ministerial appointments to its governing body. That does not settle everything; it excludes the PCC, for example, but could well affect the Broadcasting Standards Council. The way forward is for the Government to produce an amendment or new clause—the Home Secretary promised some such action on Second Reading— that would give primacy to the effect on the media of article 10 on freedom of expression. The aim should be to have a measure that covers all media, not just the press. To use the jargon, they should be on a level playing field.
The important principle behind the amendment is that we should aim for more certainty over who is or is not covered. What is a public authority, and what is not? The Bill is vague and uncertain, and that is neither good law nor in the interests of the public.

Mr. Straw: It may help the House if I respond first to the speech by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). It is a matter of great regret that the newspaper chain of which he is the non-executive chairman does not have a newspaper in Blackburn. It would be welcome, and I would enjoy its competition with the world's finest newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. [Laughter.] I mean that; I have often said so on the record.
5.45 pm
The amendments raise an important question at the heart of the Bill—the definition of a public authority. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with some of the issues very elegantly. Before I turn to the amendments, and comment on what he said about the press, which will come up later in our consideration, I want to explain what clause 6 is intended to achieve and why we came to the conclusions written into the Bill.
When we were drawing up the Bill, we noted that the convention had its origins in a desire to protect the individual against the abuse of power by the state, rather than to protect one individual against the actions of another. The history of the establishment of the Council of Europe and the great desire at the end of the war that states in Europe should never again be able to oppress their citizens as Nazi Germany and the axis powers had done, explain why the convention places on the state responsibilities in respect of its treatment of residents and citizens.
We decided that convention rights should be available in proceedings involving what might be very broadly described as "the state", but that they would not be directly justiciable in actions between private individuals. Although we were not prepared to go as far as that, we wanted a realistic and modern definition of the state so as to provide correspondingly wide protection against an abuse of human rights. Accordingly, liability under the Bill would go beyond the narrow category of central and local government and the police—the organisations that represent a minimalist view of what constitutes the state. The principle of bringing rights home suggested that liability in domestic proceedings should lie with bodies in respect of whose actions the United Kingdom Government were answerable in Strasbourg. The idea was that if someone could get a remedy in Strasbourg, he or she should be able to get a remedy at home. That point was crucial to the Bill's construction.
For those Members who are not particularly conversant with the jurisprudence of the European Court—I make no point about that; why should they be?—it is worth noting that the Strasbourg court has over the years developed its own concept of the state, and its idea of the bodies for whose actions a Government, as a signatory high contracting party, are answerable goes much wider than the original narrow definition of the state.
Having set those principles, the question is how we are to translate them into legislation. I do not for a second pretend that that is the easiest matter in the world or that there is one simple answer. As long ago as when we issued the Labour party's consultation document, "Bringing Rights Home", we recognised that there was no cut-and-dried, off-the-shelf answer as to which organisations in today's society stand in the shoes of the state and act on its behalf.
That is a particularly difficult question in the circumstances of the development of institutions in this country, which does not have a single, codified written constitution. I am proud of the way in which we have, for at least three and a half centuries, avoided violent revolution, while every other European country was either


conquered by another, larger country or went through an internal convulsion. The reasons for that are the subject of many learned tomes, but—

Mr. Oliver Heald: First past the post.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me too far, but let me tell him that in Old Sarum before 1832 it would not have made a huge difference whether we had first past the post, additional vote plus or even our old friend Mr. Victor d'Hondt. For the many seats that were controlled by the Duke of Newcastle, the voting system made no difference, because he either had only one candidate or bribed the electors.
One of the reasons why we were able to develop our institutions peacefully concerned the development of our legal institutions, with the common law and jurisprudence behind them. Over the years, institutions have evolved that perform functions that are effectively those of the state, in its continental sense, but are not directly under the control of the state. I happen to think that that is a good thing, but it poses some difficulties for the drafting of legislation.

Mr. Grieve: It is a matter, not only of the lack of codification but of the fact that we have deliberately farmed out functions to charitable organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution that in other European countries would be discharged by the state. That is the nub of the problem. I assume that the RNLI would be a public body.

Mr. Straw: It would be a public body in respect of the public functions that it performs, but not of all its charitable functions.
Our society has placed a high value on the notion of self-regulation. Essentially, the House has told particular professions or organisations that they should put their house in order and regulate themselves or we will introduce statutory regulation. Many institutions have accepted that incentive.
The best example involves regulation in the City: the Takeover Panel was not established by statute and, as far as I am aware, none of its members is appointed by Ministers, but it plays a crucial role in the regulation of markets and competition policy and has been regarded by our domestic courts as susceptible to judicial review. Although they have not used that language, the courts have effectively said that the Takeover Panel, which may be entirely private in its composition, exercises a public function. That is one of the complexities with which we have had to deal in trying to draft the Bill.

Mr. Rowe: Is the Home Secretary saying that, for the purposes of the Bill, the definition of the state is that which has been evolved by the court in Strasbourg, or that it is what we have traditionally defined as the state? That is quite an important distinction.

Mr. Straw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the distinction is not as great as he thinks. If we are to incorporate the convention in British law and make sense of it we must, as a basic minimum, ensure that the Bill and its application require that the British courts recognise

domestically as public bodies those bodies that would be recognised as such in Strasbourg. Otherwise we will not be bringing rights home and we will simply make a rod for our own back by ruling out adjudication by British courts on questions that can plainly go to Strasbourg.
In that case, we would miss out on what has been recognised by all parties as a benefit, whatever other arguments we may have had in the Chamber, and British judges would not be able to adjudicate on the convention. If we can give the margin of appreciation of the benefit of British jurisprudence to the development of convention concepts, we may avoid what people sometimes regard as foreign judges pronouncing on British matters. That could ultimately happen, but the possibility will be reduced.
As a matter of practice, we think that there is much guidance to be gained from the way in which British domestic courts have developed the concept of judicial review. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) used the word "traditionally". We are not dealing with something that is cut and dried or traditional. In terms of both convention jurisprudence and the British courts, the matter is very dynamic; 30 or 35 years ago, when I took my law course, administrative law was an obscure diversion for the odd academic postgraduate, because concepts of judicial review were undeveloped, but now it is an essential part of lawyers' activity.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I hope that I am not being too dim, but it seems to me that the nub of the clause is the difference between an act of a public nature, as set out in subsection (3)(b), and a private act. In any given case, a court will have to decide whether what a body is doing—be it an omission or a positive act—is public or private. Is the Home Secretary saying that jurisprudence at Strasbourg would allow any given judge to say straight away that an act is clearly public or private, or is he saying that the clause offers the English courts the opportunity to develop a common-law understanding of the difference between public and private acts?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear with me, I would like to continue my explanation and, if he is not satisfied, I will gladly give way to him again. The matter is extremely complicated and it has been challenging for us to deal with. There are problems with the amendment that show some of the hazards in the way of anyone who tries to define satisfactorily what are public authorities and public functions in a way that will stand the test of time.
As a minimum, we must accept what Strasbourg has developed and is developing, as otherwise we will not be bringing rights home. We wanted to ensure that, when courts were already saying that a body's activities in a particular respect were a public function for the purposes of judicial review, other things being equal, that would be a basis for action under the Bill.
In most cases in which convention rights are prayed in aid, that will be done by way of an application for judicial review. That will be one of the arguments as to why an administrative decision should be overturned, but others, relating wholly to domestic law, will no doubt be on the application.
As I have made clear, I am happy to give way, but I hope that hon. Members will bear with me. Even if a fixed view of the question could be reached, as the


right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) claimed, it could not be right for all time. One of the issues that we considered—the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire raised it with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—was whether we could provide lists of bodies that were and were not public authorities. We could have saved all this argument by doing so, but we thought that that would be inappropriate, for reasons that I shall explain.
We considered a wide range of approaches, some of which were not far removed from the approach in the Opposition amendments, although they were not identical, for reasons that I shall explain.

6 pm

Miss Kirkbride: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind. I should like to continue.
The most valuable asset that we had to hand was jurisprudence relating to judicial review. It is not easily summarised and could not have been simply written into the Bill, but the concepts are reasonably clear and I think that we can build on them.
I am happy to lift the veil on the considerations of the Cabinet Committee and say that we devoted a great deal of time and energy to this issue, as I hope hon. Members would expect us to. We decided that the best approach would be reference to the concept of a public function. After stating that it is
unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with a Convention right",
clause 6 accordingly provides that a public authority includes a court or a tribunal, and
any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature.
The effect of that is to create three categories, the first of which contains organisations which might be termed "obvious" public authorities, all of whose functions are public. The clearest examples are Government Departments, local authorities and the police. There is no argument about that.
The second category contains organisations with a mix of public and private functions. One of the things with which we had to wrestle was the fact that many bodies, especially over the past 20 years, have performed public functions which are private, partly as a result of privatisation and partly as a result of contracting out. I am not going to argue with that—it has happened.
For example, between 1948 and 1993, a public authority—the British Railways Board —was responsible for every aspect of running the railway. Now, Railtrack plc does that, but it also exercises the public function of approving and monitoring the safety cases of train operating companies. Railtrack acts privately in its functions as a commercial property developer. We were anxious—I make this point to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield in particular—that we should not catch the commercial activities of Railtrack—or, for example, of the water companies—which were nothing whatever to do with its exercise of public functions.
Private security firms contract to run prisons: what Group 4, for example, does as a plc contracting with other bodies is nothing whatever to do with the state, but, plainly, where it runs a prison, it may be acting in the shoes of the state. The effect of clause 6(7) is that those organisations, unlike the "obvious" public authorities, will not be liable in respect of their private acts. The third category is organisations with no public functions—accordingly, they fall outside the scope of clause 6.
As with the interpretation of any legislation—this picks up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—it will be for the courts to determine whether an organisation is a public authority. That will be obvious in some cases, and there will be no need to inquire further; in others, the courts will need to consider whether an organisation has public functions. In doing that, they should, among other things, sensibly look to the jurisprudence which has developed in respect of judicial review.
As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough knows, the courts have said that the Takeover Panel amounts to a public authority for the purposes of judicial review. They have also said, however, that the Jockey Club is not susceptible to judicial review, even though it is established by royal charter and performs functions which would be performed by the state or a state agency in other jurisdictions.
To take a topical example, the courts have said that the Football Association is not such a public body as to be susceptible to judicial review, so they are used to drawing a line, and, up to now, the line which they have drawn has been sensible. The Takeover Panel plainly performs a public function—there can be no argument about that, even though it is a private body—and even though the public enjoy football, it is highly debatable whether the functions of the FA are public functions. The same is true of the Jockey Club and its functions. The courts have been careful in holding susceptible to judicial review bodies which are not plainly agents of the state.
The courts will consider the nature of a body and the activity in question. They might consider whether the activities of a non-statutory body would be the subject of statutory regulation if that body did not exist, which covers the point about the Takeover Panel; whether the Government had provided underpinning for is activities; and whether it exercised extensive or monopolistic powers.
What I have said is intended to make it clear why we have drafted clause 6 in the way that we have, and what effect it is intended to achieve.

Sir Norman Fowler: rose—

Mr. Roger Gale: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.

Sir Norman Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm my suggestion that, when the Government put clause 6 together and discussed the matter in detail in the Cabinet Committee, the Lord Chancellor's advice was that the Press Complaints Commission was not a public body, and that the Government have proceeded on that basis?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to a path down which I do not want to go. This is as far as I


shall go in lifting the veil: as I recall, the discussion about the middle group — bodies which are not plainly organs of the state, but could exercise public functions— was about Railtrack and the water companies, not directly about bodies such as the PCC. I shall be quite open about the fact that we discussed the BBC and the press. The BBC is plainly performing a public function, and the House has long accepted that it should be the subject of much greater regulation than the press. We have ended up with a mixed economy: the BBC has clear injunctions on it about balance, while the press rightly have no such injunctions on them, except those which they impose on themselves through the PCC. That is entirely right in a free society.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman quite a lot, so would he allow me to continue?

Mr. Gale: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, will he deal with this important point? He said that the courts would take into account whether a body was underpinned by legislation. The PCC, to an extent, is underpinned by legislation, such as law on trespass and various other laws which affect its workings. Does he think that the courts would consider the PCC to be a public body?

Mr. Straw: My noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn made clear in the House of Lords our considered view that we believe that the PCC would be regarded as a body exercising public functions under clause 6, but not for the reasons raised by the hon. Gentleman. All bodies that are entirely private are subject to the law of trespass and the law at large. We are not discussing that, but whether they are exercising a public function.
Amendment No. 106 states:
A public authority is any person or body which—

(a) is established or regulated by statute; or
(b) which has ministerial appointments on its governing body".

Bodies established and regulated by statute would be public authorities only when discharging their statutory functions. If amendment No. 31 is agreed to,
the private acts of a public authority shall not be regarded as incompatible with Convention rights".
I do not want to "mix it". I hope that we are having a serious discussion. Having spent 18 years of my life sitting on the Opposition Benches, I recognise that drafting amendments is not the easiest task in the world for Opposition Members: I could probably list all the occasions on which I was admonished by Ministers for my lack of technical brilliance in that regard. There are, however, some internal curiosities in the amendments that we are discussing, which highlight the problems that exist.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is bursting, so I will give way to him.

Mr. Garnier: I hope that I will not be admonished myself, given that my name is attached to a number of the amendments that we are discussing.
In many ways, I agree with what the Home Secretary is saying. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) mentioned the Press Complaints Commission. Amendment No. 32—to which I subscribed—has not been selected, but paragraph (h) deals with the General Medical Council.
The General Medical Council was created by statute, but performs an internal disciplinary function. It disciplines doctors who fall into error, but its functions are not set out in statute. It is not a statutory body in the sense that some nationalised industries are statutory bodies. Nor is it even a body to which the law of contempt applies when it sits as a court. That was decided only this week in the Court of Appeal.
We have here a delicious mixture. The General Medical Council is a body created by statute —as, I believe, is the Law Society—or at least recognised by statute; but it performs internal disciplinary functions of a quasi-courtlike nature. As we discovered this week, it is not susceptible to the law of contempt. In carrying out its judicial and disciplinary function, will the GMC fall foul of clause 6 as it is now drafted, or does the Home Secretary believe that our amendment would assist public understanding of the issue by introducing at least a degree of clarity?

Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that the amendments would assist in that way. They are clear, but they are wrong. [Interruption.] Let me make my point. There was a Second Reading debate about whether we should incorporate the convention; this debate is beyond that.
As I was saying, the amendments are clear, but they are wrong. The list—I will not go into it in too much detail—would exclude from the definition of public functions some bodies whose functions are so plainly public that they would be held to be so by the Strasbourg court. If we did not incorporate the convention, people would have to traipse off to Strasbourg to claim their rights, and the main object of the Bill would be rendered nugatory.
I submit that to argue that
any part or member of Her Majesty's armed forces
is not a public authority, while certainly clear, is plainly wrong. Surely the first function of the state is to establish the armed forces, and to preserve the security of the state. The General Medical Council is plainly performing the function that the state expects it to perform—regulating the conduct of doctors.

Mr. Grieve: Surely any body that regulates a profession of any kind must be a public body for the purpose of that regulation.

Mr. Straw: That is true, unless the professions exist as conspiracies against the public, which is what the public sometimes think. Those of us who are members of a profession that is unregulated by statute should recognise that we have responsibilities to ensure that that great profession is regulated in a manner that is consistent with the public interest. In fact, I have no doubts about the matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
As I was saying, there are some internal curiosities. If a body is established by statute, under amendment No. 106 everything that it does will, by definition, be part of the


discharge of its statutory functions. The proviso to amendment No. 106 will therefore never bite. That means that the private acts of Railtrack would be included in the Opposition amendment, but not in our legislation. I suspect that Railtrack would prefer our legislation to that of the Opposition. I am not making a technical point; I am merely drawing attention to the difficulties that are caused when someone seeks clarification, but gets it wrong.
The most obvious reason why amendment No. 106 will not do—I have given technical reasons, but this is really important—is that it does not include Secretaries of State like myself. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is not a
person or body which… is established and regulated by statute";
nor are Departments generally. Most are not legal entities in their own right. Ministers and Departments exercise a range of statutory powers, but many of the powers that I exercise relate to the royal prerogative, or are common-law powers.
6.15 pm
If the amendment were adopted, it would go both too far and not far enough. It would go too far by including the private acts of bodies such as Railtrack and the water companies, which were established by statute, when we want only the public functions to be included. It would not go far enough, by a long way, in that it would not include Government Departments. It would also exclude other bodies that are at present judicially reviewable. The most obvious example is the panel on takeovers and mergers, which was held to be judicially reviewable following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the ex parte Datafin case in 1987, but which is not regulated by statute. The same applies to the British Board of Film Classification.
That is a very interesting body. As I know all too well, following the interesting discussions in which I have had to engage with the board to get it to do the job that is expected of it, it is an entirely private organisation. It is not regulated by statute. It has a curious connection with the Video Recordings Acts, but hon. Members on both sides of the House—on behalf of the public—are pressurising it to do a job on behalf of the public, and classify films properly. In any other jurisdiction, a state body would probably do the work. Here, it is done by a self-regulating body that clearly has a public function. I believe—and I think the public would believe—that that body should be seen as exercising public functions.
I doubt that these are the results that the Opposition want to achieve. As I have said, we live in a common-law jurisdiction—living law is a great strength, although it sometimes produces intellectual challenges—and in a world in which the boundaries between what is public and what is private are changing. Bodies established by statute, and with statutory functions, must properly be regarded as public authorities, but that is too narrow a criterion to stand on its own.
I wanted to make another point before talking about the press, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. Amendment No. 27 would remove references in clause 6(3) to tribunals being public

authorities. I do not know why the amendment was tabled. We think that tribunals should be public authorities, at least in so far as they are bodies in which legal proceedings may be brought. If they were not, there would be a significant gap in the protection of human rights offered by the Bill. "Tribunals" include industrial tribunals, the employment appeals tribunal, immigration adjudicators and the immigration appeals tribunal. If those bodies are not required to comply with convention rights, it is hard to think of bodies that should be. If the employment appeals tribunal were deemed not to be a public body, the cases would go straight to the court in Strasbourg.
Let me now deal briefly with the issue of the press. It is an important issue, but we shall have an opportunity to return to it when we debate the result of the consultations and considerations on the question of protection of press freedoms—which, as I told the House on 16 February, I have undertaken with Lord Wakeham and, through him, the Press Complaints Commission. On 16 February, I told the House:
Lord Williams and I have been involved in detailed discussions with Lord Wakeham. In particular, we have considered whether safeguards similar in framework to those set out in clause 31 of the Data Protection Bill"—
which was satisfactory to all parties—
could be brought into this Bill, without compromising its essential purpose.
I am pleased to tell the House that these discussions have borne fruit, and we have reached an understanding with Lord Wakeham … on a framework for amendments to the Bill".
I then said:
The precise wording of the amendments has not yet been agreed".—[Official Report, 16 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 776-77.]
They will be brought before the House in due course.
There has been a series of discussions with Lord Wakeham and, through him, those whom he represents. They have almost reached a satisfactory conclusion. I shall table those amendments and, as the usual channels are well aware, they will be properly debated. It will ultimately be a matter for the courts, but our considered view is that the Press Complaints Commission undertakes public functions but the press does not, which is crucial. We shall seek in the amendments to give the press further protection and reassurance.

Sir Norman Fowler: Where does that leave broadcasting organisations? Will the treatment that is applied to the press be extended to broadcasting organisations, so that they work in the same way and are subject to the same rules as the press?

Mr. Straw: The amendment as currently drafted does not mention the Press Complaints Commission specifically. It refers to a privacy code. The protection would be available to any broadcaster or publisher. For example, if someone feared that he was about to be exposed, he may seek an interlocutory action. In such a case, broadcasters would be treated similarly, but not the same, because they are not in the same position as the press. The BBC has its own charter and a separate code, which is different from that of the PCC. We are not working on an ad hominem basis in respect of the Press Complaints Commission code. I said that I would be happy to discuss the matter with the right hon. Member


for North-West Cambridgeshire before the debate, and I should be happy to discuss it outside the House with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield if that would be of assistance.

Sir Norman Fowler: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is important, and we shall have to wait and see the amendment that he tables. Does it mean that, for all media organisations, freedom of expression and the right to report take precedence over some rights of privacy?

Mr. Straw: I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he would not mind, to wait until he has seen the terms of the amendment. The same issue arose with respect to the Churches. This is not a consequence merely of the incorporation of the European convention: having signed up to it, we cannot assert, as a contracting party, that one part of it wholly trumps another part. There is a separate issue about article 3, which is a stand-alone article, but the whole point about the convention is that it balances one article with another. What we did in respect of the Churches was to suggest to the courts that they pay particular regard to freedom of religion. That is the essence of what we are seeking to do for the press: we want to provide important procedural safeguards.
The press are most anxious about the procedural safeguards. I understand and share their concern. Someone may be worried, not that an untruth will be told, which would lead to an action for defamation, but that the truth will be told about them. The press are concerned that that person will be able to prevent that truth from being told about them by obtaining an interlocutory injunction. That shows the complexity and intellectual challenge of the law of privacy. We are entitled to keep truths about us private, but the law of privacy is complex. The law of defamation is about preventing the press or anyone else from uttering untruths or punishing them for doing so and forcing them to correct the untruth.

Mr. Garnier: It is not to punish them.

Mr. Straw: Sometimes exemplary damages are awarded as compensation for an untruth, and it has to be shown publicly that it is untrue. A recent case involved The Mail on Sunday in a spectacular way. The problem with privacy law is that it does not deal with the publication or the unearthing of an untruth, but with the publication or unearthing of a truth. The difficulty is that once a truth has been told, it cannot be untold, unlike an untruth. That is the problem with which we have been wrestling.
I subscribe to a view on the importance of press freedom similar to that of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. As public figures, we have to take our knocks, and some of us have done so. We need to achieve a balance, and that is what we are trying to do in the amendment. I am happy to discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman and to make it available to the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way for the last time, because I have spoken for a long time.

Mr. Gale: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect these amendments to be tabled? He is giving the

impression that we are waiting for the Press Complaints Commission to draft amendments that are in its interest. Those of us who believe in privacy law find that extremely unsatisfactory. We are debating clause 6, and in a moment we shall have to vote on whether we want the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Straw: I have made no secret of this amendment: I made it clear on 16 February.

Mr. Gale: We are now in the middle of June.

Mr. Straw: There is no secret about the process. I am well aware that we are in the middle of June, but I have had to deal with plenty of other matters in the meantime, as has the Press Complaints Commission. The amendments will be tabled as soon as possible.
I have spoken at length, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have found my explanation helpful. I hope that in the light of what I have said the Opposition will not push the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Maclennan: This has been a tantalising debate: it is perhaps a trailer for a later debate in which we shall all be better armed to participate fully because we will know what resolution the Government have proposed to meet the concerns of the Press Complaints Commission. It has been a valuable debate, as it has allowed the Home Secretary to bring home firmly the point that the convention does not rank fundamental rights in accordance with some hierarchy. It would be extraordinarily unattractive if, during the passage of the Bill, we allowed the special concerns of particular organisations, even such august organisations as the PCC, to prevent us from understanding that the balance of these rights is very much a part of the protection provided by the convention.
It is certainly true that if there appears to be a conflict, particularly in respect of articles 8 and 10, the European Commission and Court have leant in the direction of guaranteeing freedom of expression. None the less, they have weighed these issues against each other when they have appeared to be in conflict. I hope that we shall seek to take that approach in our domestic courts and that we shall not try to develop a different statutory provision. If we were to do so, that would threaten the process of repatriating these rights and would require people to go to Strasbourg where a different line has been developed.
The Government's approach in clause 6, of defining public authorities—in so far as it defines them—by what they do, is question begging. In view of the options, that is perhaps the best way to approach the matter. It does not make sense to list the bodies that the Bill intends to cover because, as the Home Secretary said, such a list could develop over time. We have no wish constantly to revise the Bill to take account of changes, but it is probably preferable to admit that there is some uncertainty and that it is not possible to get rid of it by legislation. We could eradicate it only by being exclusive, which would not serve the purpose of the Bill.
6.30 pm
The uncertainty is sufficiently narrow in practice for it to be justifiable to allow the courts to seek to resolve uncertainties where they arise. That is not a horrifying


principle. For too long we have deceived ourselves into thinking that Parliament can foresee and take into account all the circumstances that might arise under some of our legislation and exclude problems. In terms of jurisprudence, that is a mistaken approach. I am happy to see much broader definitions and language in Bills because the courts have shown themselves to be conservative in their interpretation of Parliament's intention. They come up against hard, practical applications and can apply broad principles more effectively and certainly than can Parliament in anticipation of the application of rules that it seeks to draw up.
We do not need to spend much time on the Opposition amendments. They have stimulated debate, but they seem to be defective in ways to which the Home Secretary referred and others. Perhaps they were intended to be no more than a peg on which to hang an interesting debate. I have rarely been riveted by any 40-minute speech, but the one made by the Home Secretary was enthralling. The definition of a public authority by reference to what it does is right because that widens the scope of the coverage to include not only Departments and other central arms of the state, but subordinate and perhaps even localised public bodies that should be made accountable, under the terms of the convention, for their behaviour so as to secure fundamental rights and freedoms.

Mr. Gale: I suppose that I should declare an interest as a paid-up member of the National Union of Journalists. I should welcome the clauses and their relationship to the European convention on human rights because they seem to inject a privacy law by the back door into the law of the United Kingdom. As one who believes that it is time this country had a law of privacy, I ought to welcome that, but I have a difficulty with clause 6 and my reason for speaking to the amendment is that I face the problem that faces my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), although I approach it from a different angle. The problem is that the clause is neither fish nor fowl.
The Home Secretary said a couple of times that he would prefer to await the results of the deliberations of the Press Complaints Commission before tabling amendments to protect the interests of the press. It seems that that is the closest we shall get to a privacy law from an Administration who live by quote, photo-opportunity and soundbite. Any Administration who sought to introduce a proper privacy law would undoubtedly be soundly bitten by the media upon which they feed. The Bill will not protect the individual as he should be protected, neither will it enshrine the proper rights of a free press in a free democracy.
The European convention on human rights contains a clear conflict between the interests in article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, and article 10, freedom of expression. Amendment No. 106 seeks to define a public authority in a way that would remove the Press Complaints Commission from the province of the Bill and would therefore negate the Home Secretary's undertaking—perhaps indication would be fairer—that he thinks that the courts would hold the commission to be a public body. If the matter goes to a vote I shall find it difficult to support the amendment.
There is a need for a privacy law. The press have increasingly demonstrated overweening intrusion. I do not seek to protect a Foreign Secretary who has been caught in flagrante or a Treasury Minister with offshore interests, but I would seek to protect their children from press intrusion. My noble Friend Lord Wakeham, for whom I have an extremely high regard, has tried hard to develop a press code that offers a fair degree of protection to individual privacy of the kind that is mentioned in the Bill. The amendment relates to that. At the same time, he has tried to protect the interests of the press in their lawful aim of publishing in the public interest matters that are directly important to, for instance, the security of the realm.
Lord Wakeham has failed because until the Bill hits the statute book, the Press Complaints Commission has no statutory power or sanction. It has no power to fine. Not long ago, as a result of gross intrusion into the lives of at least two minors—the children of hon. Members—the commission amended its code of conduct to give specific protection to children. Only a few weeks ago there was the revolting spectacle of the press beating a path to the door of Mary Bell and her 14-year-old daughter, a girl who, as far as anybody is aware, has committed no crime whatever. It remains to be seen whether Lord Wakeham's admonitions will be heeded or whether the true story of the people's nanny, as it will become known, will be published within a few days.
If I understood him correctly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the primacy of article 10, but I would argue that article 8 should have primacy and that the right to respect of private and family life is paramount. Amendment No. 106 would negate that right, because it would deny the thesis offered by the Home Secretary that, as the Bill is drafted, a court would deem the Press Complaints Commission to be a public body. However, I quite understand why my right hon. Friend tabled the amendment—at the moment, we do not know whether that will be the case. At the moment, we do not know what amendment or amendments the Government will table, or at what stage during the Bill's passage the Government will table the amendment or amendments—I assume that it will be an amendment and I am looking at the Home Secretary in the hope that he might nod—to enshrine rights of freedom for the press; nor do we know whether those rights also guarantee rights of privacy for the individual, as enshrined in article 8. At the moment, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we do not know, because the Bill is profoundly unclear. The clause is also profoundly unclear and, if there is a vote on clause stand part, I shall have to vote against it on that ground.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 142 and 143, which stand in my name and would clarify the definition, central to our debate, of what is a public authority.
An individual will be able to sue a public body, claiming a breach of his convention rights. When the judges consider the action, they will have to consider two points: first, is the body actually a public body and, secondly, is the act complained of one on which they can rule? The answer to the first question relies on the definition of a public body, which we shall debate in relation to clause 6. The answer to the second question relies on the definition of what is a private act and what


is a public act, which is dealt with in clause 6(7). Under clause 6, it is possible for a private body, such as a Church, to be considered a public body when it performs what are deemed to be public functions.
Throughout our consideration of the Bill, we have debated what is a public body. The definition of a public authority offered in clause 6 is:
any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
That is a woefully inadequate definition, which is badly drafted, lacks certainty and will make bad law. The two principal concerns, as we have heard, centre on the Press Complaints Commission and the effects on religious bodies. I shall not deal with either of those in detail as they are not central to my argument today, but they should not be forgotten.
Both Houses have tried on numerous occasions to tease out from the Government what they mean by "a public body". My hon. Friends have put long lists of questions to the Government, but so far we have been unable to obtain from them a satisfactory definition of a public body. Today, we have debated the BBC. The Home Secretary originally said that the BBC would be a public authority, but ITV would not. I am advised by Professor Ian Leigh of Durham university, who has helped me with the drafting of my amendments—

Mr. Straw: Any relation?

Mr. Leigh: No, but his name is spelt the same way as mine. He is professor of law at Durham university and he has advised me that the BBC would not be a public authority. As the Home Secretary and other Ministers have admitted time and again on the Floor of the House and in written answers, no one really knows what a public authority is until the courts start to make their decisions—"We will leave it to the courts," is the usual answer. How on earth is the Committee supposed to know what laws it is passing if we use forms of words that no one can explain until after the Bill has been enacted? If Ministers do not know what they mean by "a public authority", how can judges be expected to know? They interpret the laws we make, but we are making a law that we do not fully understand because the Government have refused to explain precisely what it means.
Earlier, the Secretary of State for Scotland, summing up for the Government, said that the Bill was nothing to worry about—that it simply brought about a change of venue for human rights issues and that, instead of cases being heard in Strasbourg, they could be heard in a local British court. On 20 May, he confidently asserted that none of the problems that I and others had identified, for example in relation to religious liberties or press freedoms, would arise because no such problems had occurred so far in Strasbourg. His exact words were:
no one can point me to any single change, other than the forum in which the cases may be heard that will result from the Bi11."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 1066.]
In so saying, the Secretary of State for Scotland sought to dismiss our concerns, but the truth is that there are many changes in the Bill other than a change of venue, which is why it is a serious matter that we should debate carefully.
6.45 pm
First, a green light is given to judges to develop rights well beyond the convention. The Secretary of State for Scotland might have less understanding, but the Home Secretary has a full understanding of the Bill and he knows that the Bill does not just incorporate the convention—it is not as simple as that. Repeating the slogan "Bringing Rights Home" does not change the fact that the Bill creates rights that go far beyond the convention. The Government have created a bill of rights that is based on the convention, but it is a bill of rights that goes far further than the convention and it will give scope for creative judgments by the courts. Judges will be able to interpret convention rights in new ways, not accepted in Strasbourg. As was pointed out when we debated clause 2, the jurisprudence of Strasbourg is not binding on the UK courts as they interpret the law. For us in the UK, this Bill will be more far reaching than the convention on human rights that we have come to know and love over the past 50 years.
The second reason the Bill goes far further than the convention is that there is a radical change in respect of who can be sued under convention rights. Only Governments can be sued in Strasbourg, but the Bill allows individuals to take a public authority to court over their convention rights. That is a fundamental change from the convention as we have known it. Until now, if someone felt that their convention rights had been breached, they sued their Government in Strasbourg. Their Government conducted the defence and paid the legal bills. If the actions of a public authority were questioned, the Government had to defend that public authority, not the public authority itself. The public authority—bear it in mind that we are about to suck in many organisations that have hitherto not been considered public authorities—did not even need to be represented and did not have to pay any legal bills; the Government handled it all.
If the Strasbourg court found in someone's favour, it made an order against their Government, not against any individual or the public authority. If damages were payable, they were paid by the Government, not by any individual or public authority. We should remember that we are dragging in many quasi-public bodies that might not have the resources to meet that sort of legal challenge. If a change in law were required, the Government changed the law; the public authority did not have to change anything. The judgment of the Strasbourg court did not have any direct effect at all. Even in the famous Costello Roberts case, which abolished corporal punishment, it was the Government who were sued, not the school.
The third change relates to who foots the bill. Clauses 6 and 7 allow people to sue the public authority directly and clause 8 provides for damages or other penalties to be ordered against that authority. The change of venue will also cause legal action to proliferate, which is no small matter. It will be far easier to trot along to the local High Court and sue a public authority than it is to go to the expense of suing the Government in Strasbourg. Those of us who question the Bill fear that there will be a flood of cases to establish exactly what a public authority is. That is why this debate is so important. Any body that looks even vaguely as if it might fit into this wide category, which the Government have failed to define, may find itself on the receiving end of a summons.


My amendments seek to address the issue of what is a public authority and what actions it can be sued for so as to limit the number of cases that might arise and to introduce some certainty. I should have thought that the Committee was united behind the idea of certainty and the attempt to limit the number of cases.
The problem with clauses 6 and 7 is that they show the massive inconsistency in the Bill. Clause 6 deals with who can be sued and clause 7 deals with who is entitled to sue. Clause 6 is so widely drawn that no one is able to say what a public authority is, but clause 7 is very different. That is what irritates groups such as Liberty and Justice, which were hoping to be able to sue under clause 7. They wanted the Bill to give pressure groups a right to initiate legal action, but the Home Secretary argues—rightly, in my view—that only an individual can be a victim, so only an individual can sue. Therefore, in defining who may or may not sue, the Bill becomes tied to the practice of Strasbourg.
Clause 7(6) states:
a person is a victim of an unlawful act only if he would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention if proceedings were brought in the European Court of Human Rights".
As the Bill defines so clearly and precisely who may sue by reference to the convention, one would have thought that it would define who can be sued by reference to the convention, but it does not. That is the problem.
What I argued in our previous debate, and what I continue to argue, is that if we are to incorporate the convention—it is a big if, but I shall not go into that now—we should tie the UK courts to the jurisprudence of Strasbourg to stop them feeling compelled to interfere in social, ethical, spiritual and moral issues that have traditionally been left to Parliament. If we are going to incorporate the convention, it is far better to do it in a sensible way than in a way that results in huge uncertainty and creates the spectre of judge-made law—something that we have always resisted and is not in our traditions, although it is in the traditions of countries such as the United States that have a bill of rights. Therefore, my two amendments simply use the same standard as is accepted in Strasbourg.
One of my amendments would require the UK courts to define a public authority as Strasbourg does. The other requires them to define acts of a private nature in the same way as Strasbourg. Nothing could be simpler. It would add to the Bill an obligation on the courts to consider whether a claim should be entertained by the courts on the same basis that Strasbourg would consider it.
We should not consider the nebulous definitions along the lines of clause 6—Strasbourg does not. There has been much debate about this and I appreciate the Home Secretary's problems in this respect. Strasbourg does not have this problem. Instead, it refers to article 27(2) of the convention, which deals with the inadmissibility of cases—whether courts should entertain them.
A wealth of jurisprudence on the admissibility of claims has grown up around article 27(2). When considering the admissibility of any complaint, the European Court of Human Rights considers whether the body against whom the complaint is made is a body whose acts are subject to the convention and therefore a body for whose actions a Government can be held

responsible. The jurisprudence already exists, so it seems to make perfect sense for us to use that experience, not to dismiss it.
Article 27(2) also considers the nature of the act itself. Clause 6(7) refers to acts of a private nature. A body that falls within this strange broad definition of "public authority" has a possible escape route if it can show that the nature of the act complained of is private. That is perfectly justifiable. An authority may be a public authority, but we accept that it carries out private actions. However, the problem is that we have no clear guidance in the Bill as to what that means.
I believe that by referring the courts to article 27(2) of the convention we can give them clear guidance by requiring them to abide by Strasbourg's approach. Under protocol 11 of the convention, the existing filtering body—the European Commission of Human Rights —is to be abolished as the full court is restructured. Article 27(2) will then become article 35(3), but it will still exist.
To sum up one argument, there is a glaring inconsistency in that the Bill clearly defines who can sue by reference to the convention, but defines who can be sued by reference to the Government's own home-made formula. That means that no public authority or quasi public authority can really be sure whether it fits the definition. Good law requires certainty. Requiring the courts to apply the Strasbourg test for liability in the way that the Bill requires them to apply the Strasbourg test for standing will increase certainty. Surely that is something in which the Committee should be interested.
When considering what bodies can be subject to judicial review, we should be wary of creating the sort of confusion that has existed in our courts for many years. The Home Secretary hinted at the difficulties that we have experienced. Every time an application is made for a judicial review of the actions of a public body, the argument about whether the body complained of is public has to be rehashed. That sows confusion.
Hours have been spent in court rooms and thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money has been wasted on the problem of what is a public body. Every time there is an application for judicial review, the question of what is public has to be argued all over again because the law is unclear. Unfortunately, there is already extensive confusion in our law, and we are going to make it worse.
There have been numerous appeals to the higher courts where pronouncements have been made, but the question of what is a public body remains unresolved. Since the 1980 case on judicial review—O'Reilly and Mackman—five House of Lords decisions have been handed down on this one point and there have been numerous other appellate decisions. It is no good for the Government to pretend that clear jurisprudence already exists in this country which can guide the courts on what is or is not a public body. The Government are not telling us in the Bill; nor does the jurisprudence exist.

Mr. Grieve: Is not that the whole point—what is public has not been defined hitherto and cannot be defined? To that extent, is not my hon. Friend perhaps worrying overmuch about judicial interpretation in relation to human rights? Will not developments in that sphere


follow almost exactly developments involving public bodies generally and which inevitably have come from the courts with very little comment on them here?

Mr. Leigh: That is true, but new rights will be created. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the courts will have a virtually clean sheet. If the convention is to be incorporated, we fear that many bodies that have hitherto been considered private and which could not be sued will be sued. Of particular concern are the private Churches, which have very few resources and will now be sued because they will be considered public bodies. Therefore, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's seeming lack of concern about this issue; it is vital.
As was made clear earlier, we do not even know whether the Jockey Club is a public body. Apparently it is now a public body but that was not clear before, as the Home Secretary said. (Interruption.] I am sorry. Have I got that wrong? I apologise.

Mr. Garnier: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I think that he quite innocently got things the wrong way round. I think that the Home Secretary said that the Jockey Club was not a public body.

Mr. Leigh: I apologise, but that shows that there is going to be confusion about what is or is not a public body. The fundamental failure of clause 6 is that it invites a similar confusion. A huge amount of time and money will be spent over hair-splitting definitions. I believe that the Bill will place a foot flat on the accelerator, pushing the limits yet again of the definition of a public body, and create a whole new flood of cases on the point.
I believe also that there will be years of uncertainty in the courts. Some banisters, or some judges, will try to assimilate the English judicial review test, whereas others will argue on the basis of Strasbourg jurisprudence. Those consequences are all quite unnecessary and could be substantially avoided simply by following Strasbourg on who can be sued, just as the Bill follows Strasbourg on who can sue. I think that that would be a neat solution.
One might argue that if we are to incorporate the convention—a point on which I have some doubts, although it is not for the Committee to debate it today—we should at least try to do it properly and in a manner that will not cause years of confusion. I take the view that we would make a more, not less, certain law if we followed the course that I have been advocating. I think that judges would be grateful for clear guidance and a clear sign that they should keep out of the internal affairs of many public bodies—including Churches and religious charities—on which they will otherwise be forced to adjudicate.
7 pm
Including in the Bill a reference to article 27(2) would invite the court to consider whether an applicant could bring a complaint at Strasbourg against the Government about an action. If we are bringing rights home, as the Government now claim, we should ensure that they are the same rights as currently exist at Strasbourg, not new rights to sue bodies that were previously exempt.
The other advantage of my approach over the Government's approach is that it is more flexible. My approach should appeal to the Government because it

would eliminate the danger of a gap over interpretation appearing between the United Kingdom and Strasbourg, as UK courts would automatically follow the line taken by the Strasbourg court. My approach would avoid the danger of a burden being placed on bodies that normally would not be liable.
It is bizarre that the Government's approach raises the possibility that a body that is successfully sued as a public authority in the United Kingdom might subsequently go to Strasbourg, which might decide that the result of the action was a breach of the body's human rights. A charity, for example, would not normally be considered to be a public authority as it is a private association. However, the Lord Chancellor has said that, in the Bill, charities would be considered to be public authorities.
If the Government want to impose liability on certain bodies in addition to those that are already covered by Strasbourg, they should say so now and name those bodies in the Bill —which is all that I and other Conservative Members have asked for, repeatedly. The list of privatised utilities, for example, is not so long that it could not easily be incorporated in a schedule.
Why are the Government refusing to name in the Bill the public bodies that will be covered by the Bill? Why are they not coming clean to Parliament? Surely the Government should have the courage to state clearly who the Bill is intended to catch and not hide behind the courts, which is what they are currently doing. The Government's current definition is simply not good enough or clear enough.
I believe that the Bill goes wider and deeper than the convention. It goes wider because the definition in clause 6 of a public body includes bodies whose actions have never, ever been dealt with by the European Court of Human Rights. It goes deeper because United Kingdom courts will be forced to become involved in social, religious and other issues in which they should have absolutely no involvement.
The Bill leaves fundamental issues in a mess, whereas in Strasbourg at least there are clear rules. As I said, the Government want to follow those clear rules in clause 7—which is fair enough—when deciding who can sue, but not in clause 6. Therefore, the matter of which bodies can be sued is wide open and the Government have given no help to the Committee.
Would Parliament ever pass a Finance Bill without knowing to whom it applies? Is not the affected party a central matter included in any Finance Bill? To whom will a tax apply? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers the Budget, does he say, "I think that we should create a general right. The courts have a wealth of jurisprudence to decide it and they can be relied upon to do so"? No; the Chancellor states to whom the Bill will apply. The Committee is being asked to consider a Human Rights Bill without being told in clear detail—in any detailx2014;to whom the new rules will apply.
The Bill will leave judges free to exercise creativity and poetic licence and require them to go further than Strasbourg has ever gone. As there will be little or no jurisprudence dealing with the cases that courts will have to consider, they will—as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—be starting with a clean sheet. Confusion will immediately be created and courts will have to create that jurisprudence as they go along.


I believe that my amendments would deal with some of those points and I commend them to the Committee.

Mr. Garnier: I shall endeavour to speak as briefly as I can. We have had a very good debate, and I pay tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who thoughtfully highlighted the very point that I wished to make on clause 6—which is that it is vague for uncertainty.
As I said in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading, and the debate on the Gracious Speech, I do not have any specific fears about introducing into domestic legislation the European convention on human rights. However—as Ministers tell us that they are bringing rights home and creating a new approach, so that people can litigate on some matters in domestic courts rather than in Strasbourg—the Government owe a duty to Parliament and to those who will hereafter have to interpret the law to avoid as much uncertainty as possible.
The Home Secretary has returned to the Chamber. I have not started making polite remarks about him, but I soon shall. I am glad that he has returned.
From my own experience as a barrister practising in the law of defamation, I know that, in any given case, the law frequently develops. I know from my own experience at the Bar that judges frequently develop the law. I shall give two examples from my own sphere of practice —qualified privilege and fair comment.
It is often said that the categories of fair comment are never closed. Occasionally, a new case will be decided that extends the list of occasions of publication when qualified privilege applies. We are currently awaiting a judgment in the case of the former Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland, Albert Reynolds, who recently had an action against The Sunday Times. An interesting question will be decided by the Court of Appeal in that case, by the Lord Chief Justice and two other Lord Justices, which is whether qualified privilege applies to the particular fact of Mr. Reynolds's case. I shall not go into the detail of the case now, as it is not germane to our debate.
What constitutes a matter of public interest for the purposes of fair comment also is not frozen. Our courts are perfectly accustomed to extending the categories of matters of public interest, so that justice can be done in any particular case. We are used to that practice. However, that was under the old system.
Under the flashy new Labour Government, we are being given rights which, if we are to have them—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, and I fully accept— should be so drafted by the Government that any possibility of doubt is avoided.
As I said a moment ago, judges are perfectly capable of deciding whether a particular function is of a public nature or whether an act is a private act. I do not doubt that judges will be able to deal with that question, as they deal so with so many other questions in their daily working lives. However, as I said, as we are moving into a new era of activity, it seems only right and proper that the Government should be a little more careful in how they draft legislation.
The point was underscored by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. Whereas clause 6 is vague for uncertainty, clause 7 is quite the opposite. The category

of those who may sue is carefully defined, whereas the category of persons who may be the respondents is not certain. I am quite happy to live with that, but it is a regrettable matter on which we are entitled to comment. We have the opportunity to get it right—or more right—but at least at the moment the Government appear not to be persuaded by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and those who spoke subsequently.
The question of definition is always difficult. Reverting to my own sphere of practice, it is often asked of me and my fellow defamation specialists how one defines what is defamatory. Like an elephant, it is easier to recognise than it is to define, but we have to do the best we can. I had hoped that this new, wonderful Government would do rather better than the best that they could, and apply their mind and get their head round the question of definition.
The failure adequately to define what is a public authority means that the convention is no longer considered to be the perfect catalogue of rights as it was in the post-war period. I fully accept the analysis of the Home Secretary that the convention came into being after the second world war, to prevent the new states from repressing their peoples, who had been the victims of Nazi and fascist dictatorships. We are fortunate that we are the only one of the first 12 countries in the European Union that has had neither a home-grown nor an imported dictatorship, so we can stand back a little from the problems of post-war continental Europe. However, this evening's debate gives us the opportunity to push the Government a little and to ask them to apply their mind a little more rigorously to the issues.
The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about the likely contest between article 8 and article 10 are valid, although I do not agree with him in all circumstances. Reverting again to my own sphere of practice, the courts frequently have to balance the rights of a plaintiff who has been defamed or is about to be defamed and wants an injunction prior to publication, and the rights of the newspaper or potential defendant who says, "I shall prove that what I say is true." In those circumstances, at an interlocutory stage, the judge says to the plaintiff, "I am sorry, but the right to utter an untruth, if it proves to be so, takes precedence over your right to protect your reputation." The injunction is not granted and the article is published. If the defendant fails to justify at the trial, additional compensatory damages are available. It does not do the plaintiff much good at the time, but I am concerned that the contest between freedom of expression and the right not to have one's privacy invaded has been overtaken by a little too much emotion and perhaps not enough reason. However, that is a matter that may be for another day.

Mr. Straw: It certainly will.

Mr. Garnier: I am glad that the Home Secretary says that it will be a matter for another day. I wish that he would tell us when it will be. Every day when I wake up and open my bedroom curtains I think that that day will dawn, but sadly, since February, the sun has not risen. Perhaps some legislative Viagra could be introduced to assist the Home Secretary in his thinking, but on that rather flippant note, I shall return to my first point in at least partial support of my hon. Friend the Member for


Gainsborough. Clause 6 is vague for uncertainty. It could be improved upon, and I invite the Home Secretary to think again.

Mr. Grieve: We have had a fascinating debate, which has been made all the more enjoyable by the diversity of views expressed. I pay particular tribute to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who latched on to a number of important points about the legislation and its effect, although I cannot agree with everything that he said.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, we are in danger of getting ourselves bogged down in the Press Complaints Commission and the issue of privacy. It is a bridge to be crossed when we reach it, but it should not impinge on the question of what is or is not a public authority. It is a separate, important issue, but we would be making a mistake if we started worrying about the privacy law and the slight difficulty into which the Government seem to have got themselves, to which I shall return in due course.
7.15 pm
I prefer to start with basic principles. It is well known that I am broadly—and in many ways in detail—in favour of incorporation. It is clear that the thrust of the convention is aimed at controlling governmental authority, which extends its influence not only through Government, but as the Home Secretary rightly said, through a variety of agencies and bodies that come from it or are tolerated by it for a variety of purposes. For example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has charitable status, but also has the task of prosecuting for the purposes of animal welfare. It is a charitable body, which has been granted quite extensive powers by Parliament. It clearly falls within the ambit of an extension of the state because it is tolerated in the functions that it exercises. Therefore, the idea that we have to extend to public authorities the discipline of the convention should not be a matter of dispute.
What I found more interesting in this evening's debate was the possibility that what we see as a public authority might be different from what is perceived to be a public authority in Strasbourg, not only in terms of definition, but in terms of function—what it does and what powers it has been granted. When we were discussing the clauses that we introduced for the protection of religion and religious freedom, we drew attention to the margin of appreciation. I assume that there will also be a margin of appreciation in the interpretation of the legislation by our national courts. I should be grateful for confirmation of that when the Home Secretary replies to the debate.
If there is a margin of appreciation, it would follow logically that our national courts will first apply to the definition of a public authority the definition that they have been applying historically in the growing process of judicial review and secondly, where necessary, make reference to foreign jurisdictions and decisions in Strasbourg, to draw comparables. I would also assume that the fact that they draw comparables does not necessarily require them to follow them. Again, I should be grateful for the Home Secretary's confirmation.
Whereas hitherto we have seen the margin of appreciation as a device by which our national courts would narrow the scope of the convention, what I found

fascinating and cogent about the arguments presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was fear that, in this area, our national courts are ahead of Strasbourg and might well use the margin of appreciation for a wider test than is being applied there.
The question is: should we worry about that? My hon. Friends think that we should. That brings us back to the Bill's fundamental issues and the understandable fears expressed by my hon. Friends, that the creation of the convention and the granting to the judiciary of the powers of definition and interpretation will lead to the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty, and potentially to our loss of control over the development of the law in that area.
At the end of the day, I do not think that I shall lose sleep over this. I must accept that that may differentiate me from my hon. Friends, but my view derives from my experience as a barrister and my knowledge of how the national judiciary appears traditionally to work. The rock-bottom question is: am I prepared to trust the judiciary with the interpretation of the definition of a public authority?
I listened carefully to the explanation of the amendments. I am delighted that this debate has taken place, because people should realise what is happening and what we are doing. The issue cannot be swept under the carpet. The discussion has taken place and many people have applied their minds to the definition of a public authority and, quite understandably, expressed their anxieties, and I believe that the Home Secretary's escape from the morass was more cogent than that of other hon. Members who participated in the debate. There is an all-or-nothing aspect to the discussion. If we were to define a public authority in the way that some have suggested, I believe that we would get into other unintended areas of difficulty.
Will this situation produce what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough fears so much: all sorts of small-scale bodies being carpeted through the courts in ways that they did not expect? We cannot escape the fact that, following the passage of the legislation, there will be a blossoming of litigation on the subject. I suppose that I should declare an interest as a lawyer—although I do not think that I shall practise in this field. I suppose that litigation will blossom until the matter settles down through judicial interpretation.
When I consider whether judicial interpretation will mean that Parliament has shed its rights and exposed people to unintended consequences, I must admit that I think it will not. I believe that the public authority definition is already established pretty well in our law. It has developed over time. A feature of this country is that we have allowed the judiciary historically to develop all sorts of areas of law. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough referred to the question of defamation. Equitable estoppel has not been discussed in the Chamber, but the consequences of its emergence in the past 50 years have been dramatic, to say the least, in relation to the rights of the individual.
I am content to leave to the judiciary the task of interpretation, precisely because I think that public authority is not a new concept and is already well established in the mind of the judiciary. I also take the view that, with the margin of appreciation, it is less likely that the judiciary in this country will start to apply that definition to bodies that none of us would assume to be


public authorities. If it does and that means that Strasbourg disagrees and imposes its view upon us, so be it—we shall be no worse off than we are now. I do not believe that it is likely that the extensions will be so great in our domestic field—where we have already gone beyond Strasbourg—as to cause us particular concern.
I welcome the discussion on this fundamental and important issue. I am happy to say that we live in a state where we have common law—that is one of our great treasures. In a funny way, we are adding to it, and I do not think that we shall do ourselves a great deal of harm in the process.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to add to this very interesting discussion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I have enjoyed listening to the different perspectives. I am not a lawyer, and it has been interesting trying to keep up with the legal arguments. However, I suppose that there are benefits in not being a lawyer, as I have endeavoured to understand, as a law maker, how the measures will impact upon the bodies that will be affected.
I confess that I believed at the outset that the Government were not offering any definitions or allowing any scope for applying the measures—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made that perfectly clear in his speech—and were, in effect, surrendering that power to the courts. The Home Secretary explained some of the Government's thinking, which was interesting and added substantially to the debate. However, I do not think that he addressed the heart of the problem: the motivation behind the amendments.
The problem is not simply that the Government are abandoning any thought of defining the scope of public authorities for the purposes of the Bill and handing that power over to the courts—I understand that the Government have considered carefully the consequences of seeking to define the scope of public authorities in the Bill. Our courts have tended to move towards wider judicial review of administrative action by bodies that are not necessarily considered to be Government bodies but which perform a quasi-judicial function similar to that of a conventional public body. If we were to seek to define the scope of public authorities narrowly, we would expose ourselves to the risk of people going directly to the court at Strasbourg and we would not be well served by giving a right of action in United Kingdom courts.
However, I am not clear—the Home Secretary's speech did not provide the answers—about the basis upon which he understands that United Kingdom courts will operate in attempting to define a public authority. Will they do so by referring to the developing thesis of what judicial review should constitute? In the context of the application of the European convention on human rights, it would be inapplicable to think too widely or too narrowly. There would not necessarily be a read-across between the appropriate application of the European convention—which is a treaty made by Government, with the intention of incorporating it into the actions of public authorities and making them liable to action by private individuals—and the question of judicial review. I suspect that the courts will examine the manner in which a body that operates in relation to a profession, for example,

carries out its functions. If that body has a judicial character, it should do so with reference to principles that are subject to review by the courts.
If it is not appropriate to use that basis, perhaps, in time, the courts will put that to one side and look specifically towards Strasbourg. If it is intended to allow our definition of a public authority to be precisely the definition adopted by Strasbourg, we shall face the problem upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield expanded—and he did a much better job than I could. That is the heart of the problem.
If we in this country understand the state differently from the manner in which it is understood by other countries that are parties to the European convention and subject to the Strasbourg court, should not that be reflected in our jurisprudence? We should acknowledge that we have that different understanding rather than simply incorporating, by virtue of the wider definition of public functions, a broader definition and encouraging our courts to adopt it and to interpret it as being consistent with what would be the conclusion of the Strasbourg court as it might be applied in a different jurisdiction.
There is a difference between the state in our context and that in other contexts. We all have our examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield referred to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; that example goes in one direction. I have worked in the chambers of commerce, which are voluntary bodies in this country but public law bodies in most EU member states. There will be a range of such differences in the manner in which bodies operate in different countries.
There are great differences now, which might increase, in the extent to which industry is owned by the state or has the character of a public function. We have far fewer nationalised industries than other countries. Of the industries that were formerly nationalised, an increasing number are becoming competitive in the marketplace rather than exercising a quasi monopoly. It is terribly important that we understand how we can ensure that we establish through the European convention an exercise of the rights applicable to individuals as against public authorities, by reference to an understanding here of what constitutes a public authority following our signing up to the convention. Such a definition should not necessarily be exactly the same as that in the Strasbourg court.
7.30 pm
Uncharacteristically, the Home Secretary was not generous enough about the amendments. If the amendments do not technically do the job, it would be possible to go down a path indicated by them: considering bodies that are framed by statute over which Ministers have powers of appointment, perhaps including reference to the Crown and the bodies and powers that emanate from it. Alongside amendment No. 106, we should perhaps consider something like amendment No. 31, which specifically excludes the private acts of public authorities.
We should move towards a definition that looks to the source of authority rather than simply to the nature of the activity. By using the definition of
functions of a public nature",
one is opening the door to UK courts looking directly to a Strasbourg-style definition of what constitutes the state and public authorities. We should look, through the source


of authority, to what in this country might turn out to be a narrower definition. We should follow not public money but the public authority—authority being the operative word—which is passed on through legislation, the Crown and statutory obligations. By doing that, which is distinct from the judicial review test, we might be able to establish in this country a definition of public authorities that is distinct and relevant in our circumstances, even if it is not conterminous with that which might be applied by the Strasbourg court in other countries.

Miss Kirkbride: I do not intend to speak for very long, because I am somewhat in awe of my hon. Friends who are lawyers and who quote cases of which I have never heard.
I have found the debate interesting, as I did the Home Secretary's explanation of why he was unhappy about the Conservative amendments. I took on board his comment that, if he were to list public authorities in the way in which we suggest, difficulties in the ability to repatriate rights would be created. Sadly, in my view, which I know is somewhat beyond the scope of this debate, that appears a very good reason to have left things well alone, leaving rights just to sue the British state in the European courts. That would not lead to all the difficulties to which my hon. Friends have drawn attention.
The description of how matters might develop given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was particularly illuminating. Will the Secretary of State say who will pay the legal fees of the various bodies that at present can be sued only vicariously through the British state, but may soon be sued in their own right? Some of the bodies exist on relatively limited resources. The public functions they provide might be diminished by the fact that they will encounter significant and expensive legislation. I am sure that the Bill will create something of a beanfeast for lawyers—sadly not those in the House.

Mr. David Ruffley: The debate has been very interesting; I was certainly interested to hear the Home Secretary's comments. He made his points in a non-partisan manner, which we appreciate.
Before dealing with two specific points on which I should like the Home Secretary's views, I must say that the uncertainty inherent in the definition of public authorities is unfortunate. It is caused by the Government's unwillingness to take responsibility for listing the public authorities that they have in mind. They are abdicating their responsibilities by saying that the courts should decide; that, in some sense, Parliament is not fit or able to determine, or capable of determining, which public authorities should be brought within the ambit of the European convention as it is incorporated into UK law.
My first specific point relates to the operation of the term "public authority". I understand why the Home Secretary does not wish to be drawn on specific cases. None the less, paragraph 2.2 of the White Paper provides some guidance on what the Government would consider a likely candidate for a public authority. I draw the Home Secretary's attention to companies that are responsible for areas of activity that were previously in the public sector, such as privatised utilities. He referred to Railtrack, and we take his points.
It has been brought to my attention that companies such as British Gas and BT, which fall into the category of privatised utilities, could be brought within the definition of public authorities. How can they be treated differently from companies that have always been in the private sector and which compete in the same market? That is a potential breach of competition or company law. The question is certainly being aired. Will the Home Secretary specifically meet the objection to the definition in the White Paper?
The second specific point relates to the Press Complaints Commission. We are very worried about how the nature of that body may change. There has certainly been debate in government. We know that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has had certain disagreements with the Lord Chancellor. There is general confusion about the PCC's status.
I have a point to put to the Home Secretary. If the Press Complaints Commission is indeed a public authority—on 1 December, a press release from the Lord Chancellor suggested that, following some high-powered advice from David Pannick QC, he probably now thought that it was a public authority—certain things follow. It follows that individuals may, under article 8, wish to pursue a claim for a breach of their right to privacy. Such people would go to the Press Complaints Commission, but they may not get a determination that they like there. They may then wish to go to the court, and under the convention the court would be obliged to deliver effective remedies.
If that is the case, there will be an in-built incentive, almost a requirement, for the courts to ensure that the public authority in question delivers effective remedies. What might those be? There could be a power of prior restraint. The court may say that the PCC should have the powers to fine or compensate. That is the inescapable logic of bringing the PCC within the definition of a public authority.
Will not the nature and character of the PCC as a voluntary organisation that can deliver swift justice at a low price to ordinary people, with all the advantages that that brings, therefore be destroyed? It is in that spirit that I urge that amendment No. 106, especially in terms of exempting privatised utilities and the PCC from what could be damaging consequences, be taken seriously.

Mr. Straw: I shall try briefly to answer some of the points that have been raised—those, that is, that I did not try to answer during the debate. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the way in which they have entered into the debate.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked me about the margin of appreciation, and whether our national courts will be ahead of Strasbourg in applying the convention. He and I both use the term "margin of appreciation" in a loose way, for which I have been admonished, so I pass that admonition on to him. Technically, the term refers to the way in which the Strasbourg court gives the benefit of the doubt to a domestic jurisdiction. It will continue to do so. Indeed, the more we can develop our own jurisprudence in connection with the convention, the greater the margin of appreciation that will be given.
I should have explained before that we could not directly replicate in the Bill the definition of public authorities used by Strasbourg, because, of course,


the respondent to any application in the Strasbourg court is the United Kingdom, as the state. We have therefore tried to do the best we can in terms of replication by taking into account whether a body is sufficiently public to engage the responsibility of the state. The hon. Gentleman explained that well.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) asked who would pay in domestic actions. The organisations concerned will pay, so some aspects will depend on the depth of their pockets. That was one of the reasons why I made that clear a couple of weeks ago when we debated the subject in respect of the Churches. I wanted to avoid vexatious litigation against the Churches, which is why I was persuaded to provide them with additional protection in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) picked me up on paragraph 2.2 of the White Paper, which mentions privatised utilities. That put the matter in a general way, to make the point that, if we had a list of public authorities, it would quickly go out of date. I am absolutely clear that we must, to use the old cliché, provide a level playing field between BT and other, wholly private, operators. They would have to be treated the same under the Bill.
That is why we do not want to go down the road advocated by amendment No. 106, which, with commercial property developers, for example, would treat Railtrack more onerously than any other body—such as the wholly private developer McAlpine, which is known both to the hon. Gentleman and to me—simply because Railtrack happens to be a statutory body. I do not want to do that, which is why I say that there is a defect in amendment No. 106.
7.45 pm
Overall, the difference between some Opposition Members and other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is whether we seek to define a public authority and a public function by reference to the substance and nature of the act, or to the form and legal personality of the institution. As we are dealing with public functions and with an evolving situation, we believe that the test must relate to the substance and nature of the act, not to the form and legal personality.
If we were to do as the Opposition recommend, we would have a definition too wide in some respects, which would cop Railtrack's purely commercial activities as it should not, and too narrow in others—that is, it would exclude the Home Secretary, and I think that I ought to

be covered by the Bill. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the Opposition will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sir Norman Fowler: This has been a valuable and rather important debate, and I congratulate those of my hon. Friends who have taken part in it, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley). I also listened with interest to the speech by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).
I think that I am right in saying that, apart from the Home Secretary, no Labour Member has taken part in the debate.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friends wanted to leave more time for you.

Sir Norman Fowler: I am most grateful for that—but it may also say something about Labour Members' commitment to the legislation.
I cannot say that I am happy with the position under the clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, with great eloquence, there is a lack of clarity and certainty. The Home Secretary has been discreet about what has taken place in government and the processes of government. However, the potential confusion is illustrated by the fact that no less a person than the Lord Chancellor proceeded into the legislation on the basis that one important body was not a public authority, but has now come to the conclusion that it is.
I acknowledge the important assurances that the Home Secretary has given, and his response to the debate. He has said that new amendments will be brought forward to cover the area of interest of the PCC, and the press and the media generally. For us that is an important commitment, and we welcome it. We would like to see those amendments sooner rather than later, because, as several of my hon. Friends have said, we have been waiting for them for some time.
Having secured that commitment from the Home Secretary, I do not wish to press amendment No. 106 to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 4, leave out lines 24 to 26.

No. 138, in page 4, leave out lines 27 to 30.—[Mr. Allen.]

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Allen.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15 June].

[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Clause 8

APPLICATIONS TO REVOKE DECLARATION

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 4, line 27, at end add
`and the Secretary of State shall make such an application if the condition in section 3(8)(b) is not satisfied.'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 23, in page 4, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
'(2) The Commissioners shall revoke the declaration if any of the applicable conditions in section 3 are no longer met.'.
Clause stand part.
Government new clause 4—Revocation of declaration.

Mr. Hunter: I am somewhat surprised by the absence of the two hon. Members whose names appear above mine in support of the amendment. The only point I need make in moving these self-explanatory amendments is that—as I understand the situation—they are substantially reflected in new clause 4, tabled by the Government, and therefore the amendments cease to be relevant to our deliberations. Effectively, the amendments have been taken on board by the Government and have been overtaken by events.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) pointed out that new clause 4 replaces the import of amendments Nos. 22 and 23, and I shall give some background to this important area.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) drew attention to a problem with the Bill as it is drafted. He said:
clause 8 needs to be strengthened. In particular, an obligation should be imposed to seek revocation if the conditions in clause 3(8) have not been satisfied. Moreover, the commissioners should have a duty to revoke declarations if the conditions in clause 3 are no longer met."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1100.]
The Government have taken note of those points—which were well made—and considered them.
Clause 8 is intended to ensure that a prisoner who receives a declaration from the commissioners under clause 3 but who is not granted immediate release should still meet the criteria set out in clause 3 at the time when he comes to be released. The Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State a power to refer a case back to the commissioners if she considers that the prisoner no longer meets the criteria.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann identified that it is not clear whether the commissioners are under a duty to reconsider the case against the criteria. Helpfully, he also drew attention to the need to take account of changes of individual circumstances of the prisoner and of the

consequences of an organisation that was previously not specified by the Secretary of State being specified. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) tabled amendments Nos. 22 and 23 to try to deal with that problem.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I take it that that refers only to prisoners before they are released.

Mr. Ingram: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps if he contributes to the debate he will be able to help me.
We considered the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to be insufficient, and we tabled new clause 4. The effect of the new clause is to place the Secretary of State under a duty to refer the case of a prisoner back to the commissioners if she considers that, either as a consequence of an order made under clause 3(8) or because of a change of circumstances, the prisoner no longer satisfies the conditions set out in clause 3.
That means that, if an organisation returned to violence, any prisoners who supported the organisation and who remained in custody would be referred back to the commissioners, who would consider whether they continued to meet the criteria for release. The Secretary of State may also refer the case back if she becomes aware of evidence or information which was not available to the commissioners when they granted the declaration. In either case, the commissioners are under a duty to revoke their declaration if the conditions in clause 3 are not satisfied.
The Government consider that new clause 4 meets the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and we ask the House to accept that the existing clause 8 should be replaced with new clause 4. It is worth while paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has dealt carefully and responsibly with a specific weakness in the Bill. In light of our other debates on the Bill, that seems to be the way in which we can make progress in amending and improving the Bill. We have had some grandstanding over the past couple of days in The Daily Telegraph and The Times, but that does not help us to deal with a complex Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that, by careful analysis and consideration, we can take the issue forward.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Can I have some clarification from the Minister? He may be aware that the Irish News reported at the weekend that attacks were carried out in the Markets area of my constituency by the official IRA. He may be aware also that Mr. Turley, a constituent of mine, was murdered at the weekend. At a time when the House is against judicial sentencing for capital offences, he was murdered without any trial. He may have been a drug runner, but that does not justify what happened. It has been put to me that the body which did that can be described as the SAS of Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein. Would that type of thing be considered in the light of new clause 4?

Mr. Ingram: First, I will not speculate on matters raised in the press. However, from the way in which the hon. Gentleman has described the issue, it does not seem to be a description of events which would be reported to


me. As he knows, we never discuss information which may be in the hands of the Secretary of State or myself and which has been passed to us by the security forces. We must consider the details. Clearly, our sympathy would go the family of anyone murdered, because they are still victims—irrespective of what they may have been involved in.

Mr. William Thompson: Is there a loophole in the Bill? The Secretary of State can apply to the commissioners before the prisoner's release, but the commissioners can grant an application if a prisoner has not been released. Does that mean that if the determination date came up after an application by the Secretary of State, the prisoner could be released and out before the commissioners re-heard the case? Would it not be wiser and more prudent that, once the Secretary of State had made a declaration, a prisoner should not be released until the commissioners had again heard the case?

8 pm

Mr. Ingram: That was a rather convoluted explanation of a set of circumstances—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what we want to achieve in new clause 4. I do not want to go through the whole import of the new clause again, except to say that it was designed to ensure that the belt-and-braces approach could be properly exercised. Clause 8 contained a weakness, which the new clause has resolved. Having explained the purpose of the new clause, I commend it to the Committee.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister invited me to return to the issue, so I ask him whether he can confirm that the new clause deals only with prisoners before they are released, and that it will not affect people who have been released but who are in such circumstances as are envisaged in the new clause. The new clause seems to have effect
any time before the prisoner is released".
It seems to deal only with prisoners who are in custody; it does not cover a prisoner who has been released but who still has the same relationship to the organisation of which he was a member.
The Minister congratulates the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on being diligent in his business, but has not the Minister weakened in carrying out his business? Should not the new clause cover both parts of the equation—the prisoner who has not been released and the prisoner who has been released?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is now trying to amend the new clause, but he had the opportunity to try to ensure that any weakness he saw in clause 8 was dealt with. If he had had a major concern, it would have been helpful if it had been expressed in the form of an amendment, although I can tell him that, of course, the licence covers those who are released. On the specific points raised by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), the matter must, in the circumstances that he described, rest with the commissioners.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister is wrong to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for

North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) missed the opportunity to table an amendment that would cover the issue, as that issue is also dealt with by clause 9. Moreover, amendment No. 44, which we tabled, would ensure that the period after a prisoner was released is covered.
On new clause 4, we are talking about a narrow, even trivial, issue, in that we are concerned only about the band of time after the commission has reached a conclusion but before a prisoner is released—something could happen in the few hours or days between those two events.

Mr. Hunter: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 disagreed to.

Clause 9

LICENCES: CONDITIONS

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 37, after 'Ireland', insert—
'( )that he is not involved in directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people,'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 4, line 38, leave out
'in the case of a life prisoner'.
No. 44, in page 4, line 39, at end insert—
'(d) that any organisation which at the time of his release under this Act he supported, but which was not then specified as a terrorist organisation under section 3(8), has not subsequently been specified as such an organisation under that section.'.

Mr. MacKay: Amendment No. 12 covers a simple, but important, point. There is a genuine fear, which I hope that the Minister shares, that a terrorist organisation that has renounced violence and is observing a ceasefire could subcontract its work to another organisation. If the Secretary of State found that that was happening, it would be important that she had powers under clause 9 to cover people in such organisations—otherwise, a coach and horses would be driven through the Bill in a way that I know that the Minister would not want. We believe that amendment No. 12 would add weight to the Bill.
Amendment No. 13 is similar to an amendment that we tabled earlier this week—we do not see why the measures should apply only to life prisoners. We did not press the amendment on Monday and we shall not necessarily press this amendment, but perhaps the Minister has now had time to reflect on the matter. I do not want to fall out with him over this, but we believe that the amendment would strengthen the Bill. I do not believe that ordinary, reasonable people will understand why only life prisoners, and not others, represent a threat to society. The Committee will be aware that almost all terrorist prisoners represent a danger and that life prisoners are not necessarily always the most dangerous. We are revisiting old ground—I make no apology for that—and I simply ask the Minister to reflect further on the matter. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr. Ingram: As was said on Second Reading and earlier in Committee, the licence conditions under the Bill


are extremely demanding. The Secretary of State may recall a prisoner if she believes that he has broken, or is likely to break, a condition of his licence.
For the record, it is worth spelling out those conditions again. First, the prisoner must not support, or be likely to support, an organisation identified as a terrorist organisation under clause 3(8). Secondly, the prisoner must not be, or be likely to become, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Thirdly, in the case of a life sentence prisoner, the prisoner must not be, or become likely to be, a danger to the public. Those are three exacting licence conditions, which go well beyond any that are currently applied in Northern Ireland. They are designed specifically to apply to prisoners who have been involved in acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
If life sentence prisoners were to be involved in such offences as are suggested in the amendment, it would be open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider that they were a danger to the public and to suspend the licence accordingly. The ordinary criminal law is entirely adequate to deal with prisoners serving fixed-term sentences who have committed ordinary criminal offences that are not related to terrorism.
With the exception of some sex offenders, prisoners serving fixed-term sentences in Northern Ireland for non-terrorist offences who are released are not subject to any licence conditions. If they commit further offences, they are dealt with in the usual way and sentenced for those further offences. In some cases, prisoners who commit a further offence after being released from prison may be subject to a further penalty in respect of that part of the sentence that was remitted. Under the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a court has a discretion to make an order requiring a prisoner to serve the remaining part of a previous sentence before beginning a new sentence. That provision will apply also to prisoners released under this legislation.
The involvement of terrorist organisations in organised crime is worthy of further consideration. We are dealing with different issues and that matter was raised on Second Reading. I want to consider whether the licence conditions should be extended to include such activity when a terrorist organisation moves across into ordinary organised crime as set out in preceding debates. We may well have to consider that matter.
Amendment No. 13 would extend a third licence condition—that a prisoner should not become a danger to the public— to fixed-term prisoners. During the debate on clause 3, when we considered amendments Nos. 7, 55, 33, 35, 53 and 10, I set out the arguments against making risk one of the criteria that the commissioners should be required to consider when deciding whether a fixed-term prisoner should be released. That debate and argument are set out in column 42 of the Official Report on Monday 15 June. At that time, I explained that a life sentence was intended to mark the particular nature of murder and that it could also be imposed for other serious crimes if risk were a concern.
I remind the Committee that, under normal law, prisoners serving fixed-term sentences are not subject to a risk assessment before being released. As risk is not a condition that fixed-term prisoners must satisfy to be released unless the risk is that the prisoner will engage in

terrorist activity, it is therefore not appropriate for such a test to be imposed as a licence condition. If it were imposed, it could cause the following problem. A prisoner could have his licence suspended by the Secretary of State and revoked by the commissioners on the ground that he was, or was likely to become, a danger to the public. The prisoner could then apply to the commissioners for a declaration under clause 3. They would have to consider the prisoner for release against the conditions set out in clause 3 and, if those were met, make a further declaration in his favour. Clearly, a state of affairs in which a prisoner could be recalled to prison for breaching his licence conditions but released again because he met the criteria in clause 3 would be unsatisfactory, in particular as the prisoner in question would not have committed a further criminal offence. It would have a yo-yo effect, which would clearly be undesirable.
Of course, in an earlier debate we dealt with that matter and with the reasons why we did not feel that the provision should apply. Logically, those should similarly apply to the licence conditions. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to withdraw the amendment. There is a clear relationship between the release and licence conditions. We could not allow the sort of back-and-forwards process that would result if the amendments were agreed to.

Mr. Hunter: The Minister's comments did not embrace amendment No. 44. The argument for that amendment, to which I have added my name, is so explicitly self-explanatory because of its wording that I do not need to elaborate on it in detail. The basic argument is: what would happen if a prisoner had cleared obstacle 3(8) and the organisation of which he is a member or is deemed to support had been specified not to be a terrorist organisation but, while he is on release on licence, it is then deemed to have become a terrorist organisation by the Secretary of State? The amendment, which I support, would mean that it would be a case of, "Tough luck, you're back inside." Does the Minister agree that the amendment has some valid points?

Mr. Peter Robinson: I, too, will speak to amendment No. 44. To some extent, the Minister seemed to support the argument behind it by saying that he would table a new clause later. The Minister recognises that whether a prisoner should be released is based on certain factors—if he supports a terrorist organisation, that would show that he should not be released. Under clause 3, which we have already debated, if the commissioners decided to release a prisoner but the organisation he supported was subsequently specified as a terrorist organisation, he would not be released. What could be the difference save that the prisoner is out of gaol?
The prisoner is released from gaol not because of anything that he or she might have done but because of the status of his or her organisation. Surely, the status of the organisation must then determine whether the prisoner should remain out of gaol. If the prisoner is to remain in gaol if the organisation is deemed to be a terrorist organisation, it must also be right that he should return to gaol if it is subsequently listed by the Secretary of State as such.

Mr. David Maclean: I wish to support amendments Nos. 12 and 44, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) hit the nail on the head about the latter. Prisoners will be released not because of any great change of heart on their behalf or any particular merits that they have, but because the organisation to which they belong is perceived by the Secretary of State to have satisfied certain criteria and can therefore be listed as not participating in terrorism. Having been released through no merit on his part but purely because of his status as a member of an organisation that has temporarily, or for a ploy, renounced violence, it would be extraordinary if the prisoner did not then go back to gaol because of his status when that organisation undertook violence again or went back to terrorism so that the Secretary of State had once again to proscribe it. To me, that is self-evident and I think it would be obvious to every ordinary and reasonable person.
I hope that the Minister will not say that the amendment is rewriting the Belfast agreement. Clearly, it is not rewriting anything at all. Surely it is a common-sense approach. Those prisoners released under the Bill purely because their host organisation has given up violence and satisfied the criteria must be returned to gaol when their host organisation once again takes up violence or, to be more precise, terrorism.
On amendment No. 12, does the definition in the Bill that the prisoner
does not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland
embrace those other acts of violence that terrorists carry out in the pursuit of terrorism? I am suggesting not the scenario that the Minister described of a terrorist organisation moving into organised crime, drugs or other rackets, but the present situation in Northern Ireland, in which organisations may not be setting off major bombs that attract the media's attention, but people are being beaten up and kneecapped, pickaxes are being taken to their legs on a daily basis, and they are subject to violence in the course of terrorist intimidation. That intimidation does not necessarily raise money for organised crime, but may impose a terrorist will on the community.
Many acts of violence seem not to be caught by the definition of terrorism that involves being
concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
I am happy to be corrected, and I admit that my recollection of which offences are classed as terrorism is a bit hazy, but would some acts of violence, such as kneecapping, that are being committed by terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland against other citizens in Northern Ireland be classified as terrorism?
I support the amendment because it seems that those who are not directly involved in terrorism but who are directing, assisting in or instigating acts of violence are furthering the aims of terrorism and should, therefore, be caught by the Bill. I am worried that the clause 9 definition of terrorism is too narrow. It may restrict us to those involved in planting bombs or shooting members of the security forces, and it may not cover the all-too-regular occurrences of other acts of violence

perpetrated for the furtherance of terrorism against the citizens of Northern Ireland, but not prosecuted as terrorist offences.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister chided me for not raising this matter before, but it should be raised under clause 9. This point is to do not with a prisoner who is still in custody but with those who are out of custody when the organisation to which they belong has been found to be engaged in violence. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has illustrated the point by mentioning the declaration that the old IRA has recommenced its fight. That organisation is not proscribed, although the proscription "Irish Republican Army" is broad. For years, the old IRA has claimed that it was no longer involved, and that that term covered the Provisional IRA. However, the purpose of the amendments is simply to ensure that the long arm of the law will be able to reach out to bring back to custody members of organisations that have recommenced their violence. That is important, and should be dealt with.

Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the Minister for his replies. I shall be happy not to press amendment No. 13 on the basis of his assurances. However, I want to press a little further on amendment No. 12 although the Minister need not be concerned that I intend to press it to a vote as I shall withdraw it in due course if he agrees to consider it further on Report or to have it considered in the House of Lords.
The amendment is straightforward and non-controversial. If the Minister flicks back a little through the Bill, he will find in clause 3(9) that
In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation…
(c) is directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations".
We have deliberately used the same phraseology in amendment No. 12, because it covers the point well. I cannot for the life of me see why it cannot also apply to licensed prisoners. Perhaps the Minister will wish to reflect on the point rather than giving a definite answer now, and I should be happy for him to return on Report or to have the point raised in the House of Lords. I shall withdraw the amendment, but would be interested in any observation from the Minister. I reserve the right to have the amendment reintroduced in the House of Lords if there is no satisfactory response.

The First Deputy Chairman: I should say that, if the hon. Gentleman wants further information, he should ask the Minister for it and then withdraw his amendment in the light of that information. Before he mentions withdrawing it again, another Member may wish to speak.

Mr. William Ross: A couple of interesting points have arisen. The list of proscribed organisations mentions simply the IRA, but the organisation that has been responsible for most of the violence for many years is the Provisional IRA. Exactly what is the legal position? Does "IRA" cover both, and if


so, what about the original IRA, now known as the official IRA, which, according to some newspapers, has come back to life?

Mr. Peter Robinson: And the Continuity IRA.

Mr. Ross: There is the Continuity IRA, too. If we do not have the correct set of letters, might there be a defence in law? It might never have been used, but there is a possibility of it.
Amendment No. 12 raises the question of the subcontractors for the Provisional IRA and its fellow travellers. I think that the amendment is sensible, and I hope that the Minister will take on board what the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has said. He will recall that I tabled an earlier amendment to cover anyone involved in a criminal act, which I thought sufficiently wide to cover not only acts clearly concerned with terrorism, but lesser crimes such as punishment shootings, intimidation and violence. In any other part of the United Kingdom, those would be considered major crimes, and the fact that they can be described in Northern Ireland as minor crimes shows the background against which the debate is taking place. The Minister should reconsider. Not only are there subcontractors, but some crimes that are not listed should be associated with the greater crimes of the terrorist organisations.
Amendment No. 44 relates to the further problem of a possible change of name for terrorist organisations, by which they might manage to escape for long enough to get beyond the law by skipping across the border. As we know from bitter experience, there is not a snowball's chance of getting them back. I hope that the Minister will keep those points in mind.

Mr. Ingram: Let me deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) by returning to our discussion on release conditions for determinate sentence prisoners. The way in which that was defined still stands. To introduce a new criterion would make a difference to what currently applies. We judged that that was not appropriate. By reading that across to the licence conditions, I tried to explain that to have a different type of definition would mean that those who were going back and forward under a breach of licence as a determinate sentence prisoner would come back under release conditions, and then get out again. A fine judgment was needed on this point, and we tried to ensure that the current law on determinate sentence prisoners remained in place as far as the risk element was concerned. That is why the read-across applied between release conditions and licence conditions.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always prepared to consider matters, but the case must be better made. I do not criticise him; he argued his case well, but there would need to be more substance to it. We would not enhance the law of Northern Ireland by doing what he has suggested. That said, I am prepared to consider the matter because we must, in introducing any Bill, consider logicalities and illogicalities, and try to resolve them. We have judged that the way in which the Bill has been drafted is sufficient to deal with the circumstances for the release of determinate prisoners, but I am always prepared to consider further. The matter can always be examined further in another place.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) upbraided me for not alluding to amendment No. 44. That was because the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) had not yet spoken in favour of that amendment, so there was no point in debating it. Amendment No. 44 would enable prisoners who supported at the time of their release an organisation that was later specified as a terrorist organisation to be recalled automatically. I understand the reasoning behind that, but the amendment goes beyond what is required.
8.30 pm
Under the Bill as it stands, if a prisoner who is released on licence becomes a supporter of a terrorist organisation—an organisation specified by the Secretary of State under clause 3(8)—he is in breach of his licence and can be recalled. That would include circumstances in which an organisation that a prisoner supports was identified after he had been released as a terrorist organisation under clause 3(8); but for a prisoner to be recalled he must be, or be likely to become, a supporter of a terrorist organisation at the time of recall.
The fact that a prisoner supported such an organisation in the past is not a ground to recall him as that would be contrary to human rights law for the simple reason that a case has to be proven. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, East tries to advance his argument by shouting. He has an opportunity to debate the issue and I am trying to explain the background to the Bill and my understanding of the weaknesses of amendment No. 44. However, I understand the concept that he is trying to advance.
If a prisoner is released, and the organisation to which he belongs subsequently resumes its proscribed activities, why should there be an automatic assumption that the individual involved has not changed his ways? The hon. Member for Belfast, East probably thinks that no one can change their ways because he has never changed his thinking in all the time that he has been arguing his case in Northern Ireland; but people do change.

Mr. Maclean: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman told us the other night that he was an eminent and highly competent Home Office Minister, and if he does not understand that those who are allowed out on licence may themselves have changed and should not be subject to recall because of the activities of an organisation to which they once belonged, I should like to hear his interpretation of what would be right.

Mr. Maclean: The Minister is unnecessarily churlish. I never made the claims that he so arrogantly ascribes to me. I merely cited some of the unfortunate experiences that I have had.
If the prisoner is released on licence, not because of any change in his behaviour but because of a change in the organisation to which he belongs, I do not see how it would be contrary to human rights laws for him to be recalled because of another change in that organisation's behaviour.

Mr. Ingram: I do not want to get into a load of hypothetical issues, but what happens if that prisoner,


who once supported that organisation, starts arguing against it when he is released on licence and helps us to understand its activities and even to bring other people to justice? If that organisation is then deemed to fall outwith the ambit of the Secretary of State's judgment on whether the prisoner should have been released in the first place, why should that prisoner be recalled, when he is now a good citizen? I do not understand the logic of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
Judgments on release will be made on a case-by-case basis even though an organisation may be deemed to satisfy other aspects of the legislation so that those who are associated with it can, in general, be released. If an individual prisoner does not satisfy the conditions, he will not be released even though the organisation to which he belongs is judged to have changed sufficiently to warrant the release of other prisoners.

Mr. Maclean: Let us be clear. We are talking not about good citizens but about terrorists who have been sentenced fairly in a United Kingdom court to a term of imprisonment—perhaps five, 10 or 15 years, or life—for murder or terrorism. Those people are to be granted release because of a political settlement, and that release depends not on their behaviour, on their renouncing violence and becoming good citizens, but on the organisation to which they belong renouncing terrorism. Surely the Minister realises that, if that organisation goes back to terrorism, the prisoner has no merit in demanding that he remain at large.

Mr. Ingram: I do not want to be churlish again, but the right hon. Gentleman did indeed tell us about his experience as a Home Office Minister and how he was twice as good as a psychiatrist when it came to judging individual cases. Let me take him through the idiot's guide, because he has obviously forgotten everything that he should have learnt when he was a Minister about the rights of prisoners.
The right hon. Gentleman asks why a prisoner cannot be recalled if the organisation is specified after his release. The answer is simple: people can be recalled as a result only of their own behaviour and not of the behaviour of an organisation to which they once belonged. I cannot make it any clearer than that. Is he really telling the Committee that people who were once terrorists must remain terrorists for ever and can never renounce violence or say that they are sorry, or even help the security forces to bring others to justice? If that is his argument, I want him to defend it, but if he accepts my argument, he should remain seated.

Mr. Maclean: I do not entirely accept the argument that the Minister is producing; those prisoners will be released early, but they will be released early because of a political settlement, in the normal run of events and irrespective of the Bill. In furtherance of a political settlement, the Bill will allow accelerated release, but that accelerated release will be based not on the good behaviour of prisoners but on the behaviour of the organisations to which they belong. Accelerated release on licence purely because of their organisations' behaviour could be rescinded because of

their organisations' behaviour. That issue is separate from the normal release of prisoners after their sentences have expired.

Mr. Ingram: I used the phrase "the yo-yo effect" in terms of amendments Nos. 12 and 13, and there is a yo-yo effect between myself and the right hon. Gentleman. I made a comment about the European convention on human rights and the breach that would apply. To try to understand the argument, he should read article 5(4), which deals specifically with the rights of an individual in respect of events outwith his control. Such an individual may have been a supporter of an organisation, or have been the most senior person in it, and he may be subject to accelerated release, but once he is out, he has to be judged on whether he continues to support that organisation.
When we are trying to reintegrate people into a normal and peaceful society, why should such a person be taken back into prison if events take place that are outwith his control and that he does not support, and how would that help what we are seeking in terms of the agreement for which the people of Northern Ireland voted so overwhelmingly?

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does not the point being made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) fall on the ground that an individual who renewed his support for such a terrorist organisation after his release would be guilty of an offence under existing legislation? He could be charged and prosecuted, so the law adequately covers the scenario suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is wasting a lot of the Committee's time.

Mr. Ingram: I hope that my hon. Friend is not saying that I am wasting a lot of the Committee's time. I am genuinely trying to ensure that there is clear understanding of what is entailed, so that there is no misrepresentation outside the House and no attempt to say that the Government are doing something that is against the best interests not only of those who may be released, but of people in the wider community, of whose best interests we must always take full consideration.
My hon. Friend makes the point well. A person may be released because he is a member of an organisation that satisfies the criteria in the Bill, but if it no longer satisfies the criteria and he is found to be supporting it, he will go back inside—he will be recalled. The protection is clearly present.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister said that, while he understood the general principle that I was discussing, the thrust of his opposition was that an individual who had been released may no longer be associated with an organisation; indeed, he may be publicly opposing it. Surely it would be simple, under the clause, for the case to be heard by the commissioners. At least at that point, the police would not have to prove a case against that individual to get him back into gaol. It would be for the commissioners to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to disconnect an individual who had been convicted in respect of terrorist crimes from the organisation of which he had been a part.

Mr. Ingram: I do not want a dialogue to develop between myself and the hon. Gentleman—I have


explained the situation. I can understand why people say, "Once a member, always a member. If the organisation breaches the terms of the legislation, everyone should be back inside." I have tried to explain, however, why that is wrong in detail and wrong in terms of the ECHR. There is not much more to be gained from further debate on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. I shall not ask hon. Members to support it.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) again referred to press speculation. We do not respond to press speculation. Any judgments in relation to security issues are based on the best advice received—not on advice from anonymous sources who may or may not be privy to information, and who have spoken to the press and put their own spin on it. Those matters are sensitive and delicate when one is dealing with intelligence information, and it is better to be right than to fly off at a tangent, as so many people do when they read something in the press. It is better to be balanced and responsible when dealing with such issues.
I have no intention of accepting amendments Nos. 12 and 13—we have had that debate—and I have no intention of accepting amendment No. 44. I hope that the hon. Member for Bracknell will withdraw his amendments.

Mr. MacKay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Amendment No. 13 is grouped with amendment No. 12. However, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who tabled amendment No. 44, can propose that it be put—although there can be no debate on it, because the amendments are grouped together.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Committee vote on my amendment?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman can have a vote, although I am not inviting him to do so.

Mr. MacKay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The First Deputy Chairman: We must now deal with amendment No. 44.
Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 4, line 39, at end insert—
'(d) that any organisation which at the time of his release under this Act he supported, but which was not then specified as a terrorist organisation under section 3(8), has not subsequently been specified as such an organisation under that section.'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 280.

[Division No. 308]
[8.45 pm]

AYES


Casale, Roger
Paisely, Rev Ian


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forsythe, Clifford
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. William Thompson and


Norris, Dan
Mr. Peter Robinson.





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Denham, John


Ainger, Nick
Dismore, Andrew


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Donohone, Brian H


Alexander, Douglas
Doran, Frank


Allan, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Allen, Graham
Drew David


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Edwards, Huw


Ashton, Joe
Efford, Clive


Atherton, Ms Candy
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Baker, Norman
Fisher, Mark


Banks, Tony
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bayley, Hugh
Flynn, Paul


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Foster, Michael J(Worcester)


Begg, Miss Anne
Fyfe, Maria


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Galbraith, Sam


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Galloway, George


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Gapes, Mike


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Best, Harold
Gerrard, Neil


Betts, Clive
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blackman, Liz
Godsiff, Roger


Blears, Ms Hazel
Goggins, Paul


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gorrie, Donald


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Grant, Bernie


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Grogan, John


Browne, Desmond
Hain, Peter


Buck, Ms Karen
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Burden, Richard
Hancock, Mike


Burgon, Colin
Hanson, David


Burnett, John
Harris, Dr Evan


Butler, Mrs Christine
Healey, John


Byers, Stephen
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Heppell, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hesford, Stephen


Canavan, Dennis
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Casale, Roger
Home Robertson, John


Caton, Martin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hope, Phil


Chaytor, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Church, Ms Judith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clelland, David
Hurst, Alan


Coaker, Vernon
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Adam


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jamieson, David


Connarty, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Corbett, Robin
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cousins, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cox, Tom
keetch, Paul


Cranston, Ross
Kemp, Fraser


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cummings, John
Khabra, Piara S


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Davidson, Ian
Laxton, Bob


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leslie, Christopher


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Levitt, Tom


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dawson, Hilton
Linton, Martin






Livingstone, Ken
Rendel, David


Livsey, Richard
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooney, Terry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roy, Frank


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCabe, Steve
Salter, Martin


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sanders, Adrian


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Savidge, Malcolm


McFall, John
Sawford, Phil


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sedgemore, Brian


Mclsaac, Shona
Sheerman, Barry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mactaggart, Fiona
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mallaber, Judy
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Martlew, Eric
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Miller, Andrew
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mitchell, Austin
Stott, Roger


Moffatt, Laura
Stringer, Graham


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moore, Michael
Stunell, Andrew


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
(Dewsbury)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morris, Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Timms, stephen


Mudie, George
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Todd, Mark


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Truswell, Paul


Norris, Dan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Olner, Bill
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


O'Neill, Martin
Tyler, Paul


Organ, Mrs Diana
Wallace, James


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Walley, Ms Joan


Pendry, Tom
Ward, Ms Claire


Perham, Ms Linda
Wareing Robert N


Pickthall, Colin
Watts, David


Pike, Peter L
White, Brian


Plaskitt, James
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pollard, Kerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Pond, Chris
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pope, Greg
Willis, Phil


Pound, Stephen
Wills, Michael


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Primarolo, Dawn
Woolas, Phil


Prosser, Gwyn
Worthington, Tony


Purchase, Ken
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Noes:


Raynsford, Nick
Janet Anderson and


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 5, leave out line 4 and insert—
'(b) Commissioners shall consider his case.'.

The amendment is intended to ensure that when the Secretary of State suspends the licence of a prisoner who has been released under the terms of the Bill, the case is automatically referred back to the commissioners. It is then for the commissioners to decide whether the licence conditions have been breached, or are likely to be breached, and whether to confirm or revoke the licence. The amendment is required to avoid any possibility of doubt about the procedure that is to be applied if a licence is suspended.
Under the Bill, it is for a prisoner to apply to the commissioners to consider the suspension of his licence. However, it would be open to a prisoner to make no such application. Although that is unlikely, if it were to happen the licence would continue to be suspended and would not be revoked. The amendment would ensure that in such cases the commissioners would automatically consider the case, thus removing any possibility of doubt about the prisoner's position.

Mr. William Ross: The amendment is remarkable. We are not only letting prisoners out but insisting on shoving them out the door if an excuse can be found to do that. Clause 3(2) states: "The Commissioners shall" and clause 9(2) states that the Secretary of State "may". The amendment seeks to remove "may" and insert "shall". On each occasion the words "may" or "shall" are used to the advantage of the criminal. There is no question about it.
It is astonishing that it is to be open to individuals to go along and ask the commissioners to take another look at their case and that we cannot even trust them to do that. They must love the Maze, or Maghaberry, or Crumlin Road prison so much that they do not want to leave. They must feel at home in prison—perhaps because they can get a free education inside and they are studying for a degree. They do not want to leave, so here we have a situation in which the individual, whether he likes it or not, will have his case reconsidered and, if at all possible, the door will be opened and he will be shoved out. That is a most remarkable state of affairs.

9 pm

Mr. Thompson: I, too, find the amendment rather strange. When a prisoner is released, it will be up to the commissioners to review the situation of that prisoner in the light of the knowledge of the Secretary of State. It appears that the commissioners will have the power to second-guess the Secretary of State's decision. However, the Secretary of State might have information of a security or intelligence nature, which it might not be advisable to share with the commissioners. Therefore, it is not necessary for the prisoner to have the review by the commissioners. In addition, will the Minister clarify whether the prisoner will be taken into custody again before the commissioners are allowed to consider the case, or will the commissioners be allowed to consider the case before the prisoner is taken into custody again?

Mr. Ingram: The amendment is straightforward: it is designed to prevent a situation arising in which the legislation goes into limbo. We are trying to ensure that a flaw within the Bill as it stands is corrected. As I explained, in cases where the Secretary of State suspends the licence of a prisoner released under the legislation, the case will be automatically referred back to the


commissioners. That would not happen under the Bill as it stands, even though it was originally intended that the commissioners should decide on the licence conditions.
The way in which the commissioners operate is set out elsewhere in the Bill. The nature of the body is such that it has to satisfy international law and the European convention on human rights that individuals are treated fairly, adequately and equitably in the eyes of the law. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) wants to suspend the law entirely in Northern Ireland, but that is not something that the Government want to do—indeed, no democratic Government could do so. We have to ensure that the law is applied at all times, properly and fairly.
The amendment is a technical amendment, designed to ensure that the legislation does not remain in limbo. The hon. Gentlemen who have spoken are arguing another point, which is unrelated to my opening explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

RELEASE: FURTHER PROVISIONS

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 5, line 41, leave out
'(disregarding custody before the sentence was passed)'
and insert
'(or the start of any period of custody by which the sentence is treated as reduced in accordance with section 26 of the 1968 Act)'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 84.

Mr. Ingram: Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 deal with two gaps in the accelerated release provisions. Amendment No. 84 is important because it ensures that prisoners who would benefit from the accelerated release provisions must serve at least two years in custody. In particular, it would ensure that prisoners who spend a period of time unlawfully at large would not have that period overlooked.
As drafted, the Bill would allow a prisoner who had been unlawfully at large, either as a result of an escape or as a result of failure to return from leave, to be released two years after the commencement of the legislation, regardless of the time actually spent in prison. Clearly, it would be unacceptable for such prisoners to benefit in this way.
Amendment No. 83 deals with prisoners who come into custody and are convicted after the legislation has commenced. It will ensure that the time spent in custody awaiting trial counts towards the period that they serve. This is directly in line with established United Kingdom practice in relation to the calculation of sentences. We are therefore ensuring that prisoners' rights are established in terms of UK practice, and amendment No. 84 will ensure that what we intended in the Bill is properly enacted.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister go further and tell us what would happen if the individual murdered someone while escaping from custody or committed

another lesser crime on his way out? What would happen with regard to any further sentence to which he might be liable for that further crime?

Mr. Ingram: My understanding of the legislation is that it would depend on what type of prisoner he was. It would depend on the nature of the licence conditions. We are dealing with two different categories of prisoner—life sentence prisoners and the determinate sentence prisoners. If a prisoner murdered someone on his way out of prison or carried out some other heinous act, and this was known to be so, as opposed to it being something that someone merely said had happened, clearly he would be brought to judgment for the completely new crime that he had committed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 43, at end insert
'and in particular shall ensure that the accelerated release date for any prisoner is not before the decommissioning of all illegal arms by any organisation of which he is a member or supporter has been verified by any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in clause 17, page 8, leave out lines 22 and 23.
No. 15, in page 8, line 24, at end, insert: '10(7)'.
No. 16, in page 8, line 27, after '3(8)', insert 'or 10(7)'.
No. 17, in page 8, line 36, after '3(8)' insert 'or 10(7)'.

Mr. Moss: The amendment relates to—

Mr. McNamara: It would help the Committee to consider the amendment and to size up the Opposition's attitude if the hon. Gentleman could confirm what is on the tapes, namely:
The decision to vote against the bill was tonight confirmed at a meeting of the Tory Shadow Cabinet, although a spokesman for Mr. Hague said that they also reaffirmed their support for the bipartisan approach.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Moss: I was not at the meeting, so I do not know. It is as simple as that.
Amendment No. 6 relates to our amendment No. 1, which the Committee debated on Monday and deals with clause 3, subsections (8) and (9). Subsection (9)(d) contains words that are taken—although not verbatim—more or less from the paragraph on decommissioning in the agreement. Amendment No. 6 relates to amendment No. 1 in dealing with decommissioning of arms by a certain date, which will be verified by the commission.
It is interesting that the Government have continued to ignore the points that have been made by Opposition Members on the accuracy and intent of the wording that was signed up to by all parties to the agreement. Paragraph 3 of the agreement's section on decommissioning states:
All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations.


The wording in our amendment No. 1 simply stated that an organisation
is committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations".
Therefore, the wording in the agreement and in our amendment No. 1 is pretty much identical.
The agreement's section on decommissioning goes on to state:
They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.
Our amendment No. 1 went on to say:
and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, including any of its own, by 22nd May 2000".
That date is, of course, two years after the date of the referendums.
We argue yet again that the words in our previous amendment—to which I have already said that amendment No. 6 is related-were essentially the words of the agreement. Our amendment No. 1 did not seek in any way to go outside the words of the agreement, which have been signed up to by all the parties involved. Even at this stage, we ask the Government again to think carefully about the reasons why we intend to press the matter further on Report, and further if necessary.
In amendment No. 6, we are simply saying that, before any prisoner can be released, confirmation must come from the commission that the principles and intent of the decommissioning section of the agreement have been adhered to by the signatories to the agreement.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 deal with clause 17. In those amendments, we are seeking to ensure that, if the Secretary of State uses his or her powers under clause 10(7) to amend any subsection within clause 10, it should not be subject to a negative resolution of the House. We believe that, if a Secretary of State decides to make any changes to the subsections in clause 10, they should be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, a draft having been laid before both Houses.
If—as we propose in amendment No. 14—we leave out of the Bill clause 17(2) and add—as we propose in amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17—clause 10(7) in the subsections specified, our objective will be clarified: to ensure that, if the Secretary of State takes a decision or decisions, that decision or decisions should come before both Houses of Parliament for affirmative resolution.

Mr. McNamara: Earlier in the debate, I drew the attention of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) to a press release that you, Mr. Martin, felt had nothing to do with amendment No. 6. I had thought that the press release showed the Opposition's seeking to cherry-pick the provisions they like. I had also thought that it demonstrated something that never happened when the Government were in opposition—seeking to undermine progress in achieving peace. On certain occasions to my knowledge—I could enumerate them—it was necessary to protect the position

of the then Secretary of State, who was engaged in negotiations, and to prevent cries for his dismissal for one thing or another.
The amendment does precisely what I feared and to which I referred. The Opposition are seeking yet again to rewrite the agreement so as to have a precise linkage between the release of prisoners and decommissioning. The purpose behind the amendment is to rewrite the agreement and to betray the different parties to it. Those parties entered into the agreement on the basis of what was in it, not on the basis of what the Opposition would like to be in it.
To say that is not to say that one does not want the decommissioning of arms—of course one does—but to suggest that there must be a direct linkage between an individual and the satisfaction demanded in the amendment on decommissioning is unfair on the individual and, I suggest, unfair to the independent commission on decommissioning. If we read it carefully—

Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I shall finish my point and then I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
If we read the amendment carefully, we find that it states:
and in particular shall ensure that the accelerated release date for any prisoner is not before the decommissioning of all illegal arms".
That is what the Opposition are asking for now. They are asking not for a token, not for a substantial amount and not for a bit of Semtex here or a kalashnikov there; they are asking for the decommissioning of all illegal arms. Who knows how many illegal arms are held by any paramilitary organisation?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The security forces know.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman, the hon. and reverend Gentleman who leads for the Democratic Unionist party, says from a sedentary position that the security forces know. If the security forces know the amount of illegal arms that are held, that would suggest their being there with the quartermasters counting the arms as they are put in their concrete bunkers somewhere in County Meath, Kerry or, God help us, perhaps in North Antrim. It is obvious that that is not so and that the security forces could not possibly know.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. McNamara: I shall finish my point and then I shall give way, first, to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and then to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).
How can anybody know of all the illegal arms that are held? Who will be satisfied that all illegal arms have been decommissioned? The commission on decommissioning cannot verify that all illegal arms have been decommissioned. It is necessary to depend on information that will necessarily be incomplete.
On the basis of the argument that Opposition Members are advancing, paramilitary organisations will say, "This is a list of what we have. We have 13 pikes from 1798,


a few muskets from another occasion, a couple of .303s from 1916," and so on. Is that what they will do? How can we be certain that there is not another pike in the thatch? It is—

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The agreement says that.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be quiet.

Mr. McNamara: The commission cannot be certain. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said, I think, "That is what the agreement says," but it does not. Paragraph 4 states:
The Independent Commission will monitor, review and verify progress on decommissioning of illegal arms, and will report to both Governments at regular intervals.
Is that the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising? It does not make the independent commission, which could not possibly know whether all arms have been handed in, infallible; it refers only to the "decommissioning of illegal arms".

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman claimed initially that there was no direct connection between prisoner release and decommissioning. He should have listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon when he said clearly that there was such a connection and that it is explicit in the Bill. Our argument with the Prime Minister is not the connection but the fact that it is not explicit in the Bill—and it should be.

Mr. McNamara: I listened carefully to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today. He did not say what the hon. Gentleman alleges. I suggest that he reads the Prime Minister's words very carefully.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The agreement says:
They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums North and South".
We did not put that in the agreement because we were not there. The parties that signed the agreement put that there—including the word "all." What is more, the security forces have already informed the Minister how many arms they believe the IRA has, about the IRA's strike capability and of how many arms other organisations have.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. He said that the Minister has been told how many arms the security forces believe the IRA has—they do not know how many arms the IRA holds. That is my first point. Secondly, the agreement states:
They … confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums".
That statement is qualified by the reference to working "in good faith" to achieve that aim. The amendment says:

not before the decommissioning of all illegal arms".
It will not matter that the parties have worked in good faith and used such influence as they have because, unless every weapon is put down, nobody will be let out of prison as part of what is surprisingly called accelerated prison release.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has strengthened his position since the last time we discussed this matter: he is now calling for all arms to be handed in. There is no way that the security forces or many of the organisations, given their diffuse nature, will know precisely how many arms are held. If, as the Opposition claim, there is a quartermaster with the Continuity IRA who hands out arms to dissidents, who is to be held responsible for those arms? Who can be certain how many arms are involved unless we know what the quartermaster has passed out?
The amendment, quite apart from being illogical, asks people to achieve the impossible. We cannot be certain of ever delivering what the amendment calls for. No man or woman who belonged to an organisation would ever be released because the terms of the amendment are not deliverable or achievable. Such linkage between prisoners and arms is not in the agreement. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is seeking to rewrite the amendment. That is not what representatives of the various loyalist and republican paramilitary factions signed up to when they agreed to an unequivocal ceasefire. They signed up to the agreement, not to the interpretation that Her Majesty's Opposition would like to put on it. The Opposition are cherry-picking.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is putting a danger before the Committee. If one of the signatories does not like some little part of the agreement, will they seek to rewrite it? Some people in the Republic may not like, say, the constitutional clauses, and seek to amend it in legislation. Are they to be allowed to succeed? Will they have the precedent that the Opposition are trying to set? The Opposition are putting the whole agreement at risk by seeking to tamper with what Her Majesty's Government have brought forward.

Mr. Donaldson: I support the amendment. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that to accept the amendment would be to betray the parties that had signed the agreement. I suggest that he read the list of names in which the amendment has been tabled. He will see the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who I believe is the leader of one of the parties that signed the agreement.
It is vital to emphasise the importance of decommissioning in this process. Decommissioning first came on the scene before the talks got under way—with the report of the international body that was chaired by the former senator, George Mitchell. That international body recommended that the decommissioning of terrorist weapons was an important part of the confidence-building process surrounding political talks. In all the time since that report, not one weapon has been decommissioned by any terrorist organisation. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that we are talking about terrorist organisations, not political parties.
The hon. Member for Hull, North is wrong to say that there is no link between decommissioning and the release


of prisoners. One of the Government's criteria concerning eligibility for release of prisoners in clause 3 is that a terrorist organisation must be
co-operating fully with any Commission
established by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. That creates a link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners; the Government themselves have created the link in the Bill. We are simply trying to clarify exactly what
co-operating fully with any Commission
means.
Are hon. Members who oppose the amendment suggesting that "co-operating fully" could mean something less than the decommissioning of weapons? If that is so, let them tell us. It is important that we understand what "co-operating fully" with the independent commission means. The Secretary of State will have to judge whether any of the terrorist organisations is "co-operating fully". How can it be argued that a terrorist organisation is "co-operating fully" on the decommissioning of weapons when it is not decommissioning its weapons? In anyone's terms, a failure to decommission weapons represents a failure fully to co-operate with the independent commission.

Mr. McNamara: As I understand the situation, there are signatories to the agreement who are said to represent various paramilitary organisations. Let us take the case of signatory X. He tries to use his best efforts to achieve decommissioning by the organisation of which he is supposed to be the political representative, but his fullest and best endeavours fail. What then? He has kept to all the undertakings that he gave in the agreement.

Mr. Donaldson: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not the political parties but the terrorist organisations that are referred to in clause 3. It does not matter whether Sinn Fein, the Ulster Democratic party or the Progressive Unionist party are using their best endeavours. With regard to the criteria that the Secretary of State must consider, the question is: is the terrorist organisation co-operating fully with the commission? Is the IRA co-operating fully with the independent commission?
Sinn Fein does not have prisoners in the gaols; the IRA does. I happen to believe, as I understand the Government do too, that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked—but the question here is whether a prisoner who belongs to a terrorist organisation qualifies for early release under the terms of the Bill.
The Secretary of State is required to consider a number of criteria before she can reach a determination whether the organisation to which the individual prisoner belongs qualifies for accelerated release. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Hull, North, the organisation concerned is not the political party but the terrorist organisation.
Therefore I will continue to argue that the terrorist organisation must fully co-operate with the commission on disarmament—and surely that must require full decommissioning to take place. If the terrorist

organisation to which the prisoner belongs is not decommissioning its weapons, how can one possibly argue that it is co-operating fully with the independent commission? It is important to draw the truth out.
I suspect that there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the criteria and that when the Secretary of State comes to consider them they will be fudged.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman says that there is a great deal of ambiguity about the Bill, but does he agree that there was no ambiguity when the agreement was sold to the people of Northern Ireland by the Government? They were led to believe that prisoner release—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is beyond the scope of the amendment, which is confined to a particular matter.

Mr. Donaldson: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making; the Government need to spell out the details clearly.
During the debate on a previous amendment, I asked the Secretary of State to spell out exactly what she means by co-operating fully with the independent commission, but she failed to do so. No one from the Government Benches has yet told the Committee what the Government's interpretation of that phrase is.
I ask the Minister again to tell us when he responds whether that phrase means that the terrorist organisations are required to decommission their weapons. Does co-operating fully with the commission mean actual decommissioning of terrorist weapons? I think that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to know.
As for the amendment, we have a scenario in which terrorists may be on remand at the moment or still at large, having committed serious offences but not yet having been sentenced for, or perhaps even charged with, offences that they committed before the cut-off date in the Bill. Such an individual—when apprehended, brought before the courts and found guilty of serious crimes, including murder—will be released after two years. That is also true for some who have committed multiple murder.
The amendment is entirely reasonable, as it requires that individuals convicted of a serious offence in those circumstances cannot be released until there has been decommissioning of terrorist weapons. That is the least that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect. I hope that the Government will reconsider their approach to the amendment and, in particular, that the Minister will spell out—at long last and clearly—what the Government mean by requiring terrorist organisations to co-operate fully with the independent commission.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I support the amendment, the central point of which is the requirement for the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. Decommissioning has been at the core of controversy in Northern Ireland for a long time. It was the position of Her Majesty's Government when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was Prime Minister that before anyone could get into a talks process there would be a requirement for them to decommission. That was diluted and the Government then indicated that it would


be sufficient, on the basis of Washington 3, for organisations to put forward a significant portion of their weaponry as an indicator of their intent, while agreeing to decommission the rest during the talks process.
That, of course, was diluted as well and the Government accepted that organisations should enter the talks process on the clear understanding that, during the process, the paramilitary organisations would decommission their illegal weapons. That was diluted and organisations were allowed to remain throughout the whole talks process without decommissioning one bullet, one weapon, one ounce of Semtex or one detonator.
We have been told that for the release of prisoners and entry into government, a substantial proportion of weaponry would have to be decommissioned. That was the indication the Prime Minister gave the Leader of the Opposition in the House on 6 May. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that the Opposition might put in the terms of their amendment an undertaking given to them by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. It is hardly odd that the terms of the amendment should be consistent with the Prime Minister's undertaking.
I must agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In the agreement—as I have said consistently—there is no requirement for decommissioning, nor is there any sanction if decommissioning does not take place. It makes it clear that organisations must use their best endeavours—but too bad if they do not succeed. There is no punishment for any of the participants if they fail, having used their best endeavours—unless, of course, one accepts the terminology used in the agreement in the section dealing with prisoners, such as where it says that there must be a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Does such a ceasefire have to be interpreted as including the decommissioning of weaponry?
One could argue that if people are intending to give up violence, there is no requirement for them to hold on their weaponry. It would not be inconsistent with a total and complete cessation of violence—indeed, it would be a way of demonstrating that they had given up violence for good—if the organisations handed in their illegal weaponry. The people of Northern Ireland were led to believe that that was the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement, because that is what he told them.
On that basis, we are entitled to say that the Prime Minister should honour his commitments, not only on the release of prisoners, but on other aspects of the implementation of the agreement, such as the formation of an Executive. The amendment is important, if only as a test of whether the Prime Minister has been as good as his word—it would include in the Bill the very words that he agreed accurately reflected his position. Again, I wait to see whether the Government will include in the Bill the undertakings that the Prime Minister has given to the House.

Mr. Ingram: As we have had a detailed debate on this group of amendments, it is worth setting out the background to clause 10. As has been said in previous debates, the purpose of the Bill as a whole is to implement the prisoners section of the Good Friday agreement, as negotiated by the Northern Ireland parties in Belfast and as endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland. Those are the key facts.
Paragraph 3 of that section of the agreement said that
the intention would be that should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State placed in the Library a copy of a memorandum on the release of prisoners, which was circulated to all the parties in the negotiations. Paragraph 7 of the memorandum said:
Most eligible prisoners would be released within two years. At that point those prisoners still in custody would be automatically released if otherwise eligible for release under the scheme. This date would be set in legislation. The Secretary of State would have power to bring the date forward or to put it back depending on the circumstances and progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society.
Clause 10 reflects those arrangements.
I recognise at the outset that, in what can only be described as an unusual Bill, the clause is exceptional. However, it reflects what was negotiated and accepted by the parties in the negotiations in Belfast and what has now been endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. It is important that the prisoners element of the agreement, like the agreement as a whole, is set in the clear context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole.
Like my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, I have said repeatedly that the agreement stands or falls as a package. If there is progress in implementing some elements of the agreement, but no progress in implementing others, the agreement as a whole will not work. It is essential that the arrangement for the release of remaining eligible prisoners after two years, as provided for in the clause, is clearly understood to be in the context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole.
There are important safeguards to ensure that that is so, including the general safeguards in the Bill: the Secretary of State can suspend the release of prisoners generally at any time; she can, under clause 3, exclude from benefit prisoners who support a terrorist organisation; and she is required to keep that under regular review. In addition to those general powers, the Secretary of State has the power under clause 10(7) to move the two-year cut-off point forwards or backwards—the clause provides the Secretary of State with powers to delay the automatic release of prisoners at the two-year point if she considers it necessary.

Mr. Moss: The Minister said that the parties to the agreement should go along with all sections of the agreement, but will he deny that, under the Bill as drafted, at the end of two years, with all the prisoners released, it is still possible that no decommissioning will have taken place?

Mr. Ingram: I shall deal with those circumstances, because that is an important element—[Interruption.] I do not see what is so funny about it, and I do not know why the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) finds decommissioning so funny, as it is vitally important.
I have said that the provision is set firmly in the context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole and, as the memorandum that my right hon. Friend placed in the Library of the House said, in the context of
progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society.


A number of hon. Members rightly drew attention to the commitments on decommissioning, which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned. In particular, paragraph 3 of the section on decommissioning, on page 45 of the agreement, binds anyone who supports it
to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations
and to using
any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.

Mr. Donaldson: rose—

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman had a good run at his argument. If he lets me expand mine, we can move on and deal with the points on which he is dissatisfied—[Interruption.] It is better that we explain the overall context of the debate, so that we can then try to understand the points at issue.
The commitments set out in the agreement and whether they are adhered to are clearly relevant to whether the circumstances exist and whether progress to a normal peaceful society has been sufficient to justify the release of all remaining eligible prisoners in two years' time. Progress on the decommissioning element of the agreement is essential to implementation of the agreement as a whole. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech at Balmoral on 14 May:
These factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgement—a judgement which will necessarily become more rigorous over time".
I well understand the arguments that have been advanced for amendment No. 6 and the general thrust of the arguments advanced in the debate. Nothing in the clause as it stands prevents the Secretary of State from taking full account of progress, or the lack of it, in implementation of the decommissioning section of the agreement, in deciding whether to change the two-year cut-off point. Indeed, as again has been repeatedly stressed, progress in implementing all elements of the agreement is critical if the agreement as a whole is to work.

Mr. Donaldson: I should like to clarify something. The agreement is binding upon the participants—the signatories—but the Bill relates not to the signatories or the participants in the talks, but to individual prisoners and the terrorist organisations to which they belong. My question for the Minister is: what do the Government mean by those organisations being required to co-operate fully with the independent commission? That is what we are asking. We are interested not in what the participants to the talks are doing in the context of the Bill, but in the terrorist organisations to which the prisoners belong. The question is, how do the Government interpret fully co-operating with the independent commission on the part of the terrorist organisations? That has nothing to do with using one's influence. Does it mean decommissioning taking place?

Mr. Ingram: Of course, one of the conditions is a requirement to be co-operating with the decommissioning

body. Another is the point that I was just stressing, which the hon. Gentleman has not taken on board—I do not know whether that is because of an unwillingness to listen to the strength of the case that is being advanced by the Prime Minister. The judgment will necessarily become more rigorous in time. The question is, at what point does it happen? As we get closer to the two-year point, those who will be judging whether the agreement is being properly applied will judge whether there has been movement in that period. Therefore, the judgment will become more rigorous, the closer we get to that point. By any definition, that must be the worst scenario.
The best scenario, which all of us want, is progress. The more people talk up the possibility that progress will never happen, the more they give sustenance to those who do not want it. They give support to those who want to wreck what the agreement has set out to achieve.
Language is important to ensuring that we quantify exactly what the agreement says, and the Bill does that. Prisoner releases will be carried on the back of that, and the test to be applied will become more rigorous over time.

Mr. Donaldson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am willing to participate in debate with him in the way that he wants, but he has had a good chance to speak. I am trying to set out a structured argument, so that we can have a reasoned debate.

Mr. Donaldson: Answer my question.

Mr. Ingram: I am answering it in my way, and in the way in which it should properly be answered for those who want to see movement towards a peaceful society on the basis of an agreement voted for by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: No. Those who want to wreck what we are trying to achieve as we deal with difficult and complex issues to take forward the agreement just weeks after its endorsement by the people of Northern Ireland could, if they gave the right type of support to what we are trying to achieve, help us to move forward in a more structured way.
The agreement used the phrase,
should the circumstances allow it
rather than establishing a specific precondition. So did the memorandum placed in the Library of the House, which used the phrase,
depending on the circumstances and progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society.

Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: No, but I shall in a moment.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East constantly goes on about what the Prime Minister has said. The hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister has conned the people of Northern Ireland, and he uses the press in Northern Ireland to support that. He does not of course


use the Irish News; he probably would not want to quote that paper. Therefore, let me give him a quotation from last night's edition of the Belfast Telegraph, which said:
The Conservative Party is going down a dangerous road by warning members will vote against the bill on prisoner releases when it reaches its final stage in the Commons on Thursday.
The paper is a substantial voice of opinion within Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister said to ignore the press.

Mr. Donaldson: Ignore the press.

Mr. Ingram: Let me remind hon. Members what I have said about the press. I said that we should ignore speculation in the press. The point about the Belfast Telegraph is addressed particularly to the hon. Member for North—East Cambridgeshire, so that he can pass it on to the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who cited The Times to justify his position. The Belfast Telegraph has expressed a quality judgment, and has taken into account what the Prime Minister actually said. The leader goes on to say:
Yet Mr. Blair made no explicit linkage between decommissioning and prisoner releases, as the Tories are now demanding.
The extensive, well-argued, cogent leader is not without criticism of those engaged in the process, which makes it a healthy read. It concludes:
No one likes the Agreement in its entirety, but it still represents Northern Ireland's best chance of securing a lasting peace.
I think—indeed, I know—that that is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for on 22 May. That is what they said when they endorsed the agreement.

Mr. Moss: I have the memorandum that the Secretary of State placed in the Library and I have read paragraph 7, which deals with
progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society.
The Prime Minister has spoken several times of organisations giving up violence for good, and the words "unequivocal ceasefire" in the Bill are important. Will the Minister answer the simple question that I put to him about 20 minutes ago? Under the terms of the Bill, is it possible, at the end of the two years, that all prisoners could be released without any decommissioning having taken place? Yes or no?

Mr. Ingram: I wish that the debate were as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman has an extremely responsible position, speaking for a major party that was involved, month after month, year after year, in trying to advance the peace process, through secret dealings with the IRA and a range of other means, with the full support of my party in opposition. We gave him every encouragement to understand the sensitivities and difficulties in a spirit of bipartisanship. It would be nice to think that those of us who genuinely want a peaceful society could simply decide by fiat that decommissioning was to take place tomorrow, but that will not happen. If he does not understand that decommissioning, by its very nature, must be voluntary, he should not hold his position as a spokesperson on this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about how we could attest to the words in the agreement and elsewhere, and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the information that the security forces provide to Ministers and to the Prime Minister on what equipment and arms paramilitary organisations are understood to hold, although we never discuss the level or basis of that knowledge, because to do so would give information to those organisations.
Opposition Members may play fast and loose with the issue, and those who are campaigning against the agreement have the democratic right to try to wreck it. If they do not want to implement the express wish of the people of Northern Ireland, they need not help to do so.

Mr. Donaldson: They want decommissioning.

Mr. Ingram: There is no argument among any Members of Parliament on that point: that is the objective that we all desire. I hope that that intervention does not imply that the Government do not want weapons to be decommissioned. The question is how to achieve that objective. Conditions on the matter in the legislation are likely to be reflected in subsequent legislation for a settlement and we shall have to take account of the key elements of the Belfast agreement.
We must deal with all those factors in a structured way and relate them one to the other. On our first day in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that
it is also true to say that underlying those explicit links are deeper and more fundamental understandings.
The Government are in no doubt that a fundamental element of those underlying understandings is that those who seek to benefit from the agreement can do so only on the basis of a genuine and unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful means, now and in the future. That is fundamental."—[Official Report, 15 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 72.]
I have endeavoured to make it clear that the Government have much sympathy with the concerns expressed by those who support amendment No. 6 and the thinking underlying it. We can contemplate the operation of the two-year cut-off point only in the context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole. I hope that the subtlety as well as the clarity of that explanation is understood by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who speaks—(Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman seek a yes or no answer. Does he want another lecture on what his Government did and the subtleties that they had to be involved in to try to achieve momentum towards peace?
10 pm
We could be absolutist and approach the debate as a black-and-white argument. If Her Majesty's official Opposition are going down that route, they are moving rapidly into the ranks of those who want to wreck the Belfast agreement. They will be linking up with hon. Members who have no wish to take it forward on a structured and coherent basis, which is what the majority of the people of Northern Ireland–71 per cent.—voted for on 22 May.


The electorate knew that there were subtleties in the argument, and they knew what they were doing when they voted in that way. They did not operate on the simplistic notions with which the hon. Gentleman has approached the issue.

Mr. Moss: I thank the Minister for giving way, but I did not paint my question in black and white. I asked for a yes or no answer, but I used the word "possible". I did not ask him whether there would definitely be decommissioning; I just asked whether it was possible that, at the end of two years, all prisoners could have been released with no decommissioning having taken place.
In answer to a question from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev Ian Paisley), the Prime Minister said:
Certainly we will give effect to the pledges that have been made prior to the assembly elections. That is absolutely right. As I have made clear throughout and do so again now, the provisions in relation to decommissioning and what I said about it before the referendum campaign stand and must properly be put in the legislation."—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 366.1
The only reference to decommissioning is in clause 3(9), which mentions "co-operating fully" with the commission. There is no mention in the appropriate part of the Bill of the pledges on decommissioning given in the agreement. How does the Minister equate what the Prime Minister said with putting that properly in the Bill?

Mr. Ingram: Those who have followed the debate will realise that we are saying, "Oh yes it does," while the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members from other Opposition parties are saying, "Oh no it doesn't." The hon. Gentleman was a Northern Ireland Minister. He understands the difficulties and the complexities of the issue, although when we were debating other legislation, he told me that he was never the Minister with responsibility for security, so I should not ask him difficult questions on such matters. If he brushed up on just how difficult this issue is, he could perhaps represent his once great party properly at the Dispatch Box.
The Bill has been carefully constructed, and it upholds in their entirety the assurances given by the Prime Minister on 14 May in his Balmoral speech and subsequently. Those who say that it does not are those who want to wreck the agreement, not take it forward. That is the important linkage with which we are dealing. We are saying that there are specific powers under the clause and in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make decisions—depending on the circumstances, on the judgment at the time and on how the agreement has been implemented, whether in full or in part.
Let me pose a hypothetical question. What would happen if a judgment that could wreck the agreement was made on a Thursday, without the people who made it knowing that an organisation may have been prepared to change its position on Friday? Hon. Members should think about that carefully. There must be careful consideration and judgment, and we have to move forward on that basis. The Bill is clearly in line with the agreement and clearly in line with the commitments given by the Prime Minister. We have had a detailed debate, but hon. Members may wish to return to parade again their wish to see the Belfast agreement destroyed. That, of course, is the right of a democratic society.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire raised issues relating to amendments Nos. 14 to 17. I understand his argument, which was that the power to vary the two-year cut-off point was very significant—not least for the reasons that we have been discussing. I am therefore prepared to accept his amendment and those tabled with it, which would make any order varying the two-year cut-off point subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution in Parliament. Scrutiny of what the Secretary of State does will take place here, in the House. That is where it will be judged whether or not the agreement has been implemented in full.

Mr. Peter Robinson: It would be wrong for us to close this part of the debate without giving the Minister a further opportunity to reflect on—and, indeed, put right—something that he may well regret tomorrow morning. On two occasions during his speech, he was given the opportunity to answer a simple question. Many people in Northern Ireland signed up to the agreement—many within the 71 per cent. about whom the Minister continues to talk—because they believed that there would be actual decommissioning before any prisoners would be released, or before their representatives would be in government. They believed that that would happen before prisoners were released.
The question asked by the Opposition spokesman was not whether the Minister believed that that would happen before prisoners were released. The question was whether he believed that, after two years—after all the prisoners had gone—one bullet would have been handed over. The Minister could not answer that question. I am not sure whether the Minister appreciates the impact that that will have in Northern Ireland—the knowledge that not only will no guns, no bullets, no Semtex and no detonators be handed over before the prisoners get out, but they may not be handed over at all.

Mr. Ingram: My Secretary of State tells me not to respond to what has just been said, and I will pay due attention to that, once I have made one comment.
What does the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) know about the decommissioning legislation? Does he know when it was passed? Probably not. In fact, it was dealt with on 11 March. I dealt with it in Committee. Since then, I have had meetings with my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland to speed progress, and meetings with the decommissioning body. It should not be said that I, or any of my colleagues, have not been trying to remove the gun, the bomb, the bullet and Semtex from the face of Northern Ireland.
We have, as a Government, 13,500 RUC officers on the estates of Northern Ireland. We have 17,000 members of Her Majesty's forces trying to tackle terrorism. This Government, and, indeed, past Governments, should not be accused of being soft on terrorism. The major point is that we are determined to defeat, as best we can, the scourge of terrorism that has blighted the face of Northern Ireland for the past 30 years. The agreement is a major step towards achieving that.
I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would understand that, rather than living in the past. Let us begin to look towards the future.

Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting amendments Nos.14 to 17. I am glad that we did not need to debate them for three hours; at least the strength of our points has been taken on board.


We had a prolonged discussion on amendment No. 6. Twice the Minister was asked a simple question about possibilities, and twice he evaded giving a simple answer. If it is his judgment that he did not give a straight answer, he will have to face the consequences of how that is played in the press tomorrow, here and in Northern Ireland. That is his decision.
The Opposition are not seeking to wreck the agreement. We support the Government on all parts of the agreement, including the section on decommissioning. We would not have supported the Government if there had not been a section on decommissioning. We have never accused the Government of not wanting decommissioning along the lines that we have proposed. There is no accusation that the Government's intent regarding decommissioning is not strong. That is not the question we are posing. We are merely asking whether, under the legislation, prisoners could be released at the end of two years without decommissioning having taken place. The answer is yes, but the Minister will not reply to that simple question.
We shall not pursue this matter tonight, but we may revisit it on another occasion. We thank the Minister for his concessions on amendments Nos. 14 to 17, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 84, in page 5, line 43, at end insert—
'(8) Nothing in this section shall permit the release of a prisoner following a declaration under section 3(1) before he has served two years of the sentence to which the declaration relates; and for that purpose any period of custody by which the sentence is treated as reduced in accordance with section 26 of the 1968 Act shall be treated as served as part of the sentence.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

NOTICE OF DECISIONS

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 17, at end insert—
'(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the Commissioners shall not have to give reasons where the decision to refuse is based on information received from the Royal Ulster Constabulary or Security Services and where these organisations warrant that revealing the information would be prejudicial to national security or put at risk the lives of individuals.'
Clause 11 causes me concern as it is drafted. The commissioners can, quite rightly, refuse an application. The clause forces the commissioners to give reasons for their decision. The rules in schedule 2 permit the Secretary of State or the Royal Ulster Constabulary to give information or evidence to the commission on behalf of the security services. The Secretary of State or the Chief Constable of the RUC would have responsibility for giving information to the commission that may lead it to determine that the person concerned is still a danger to the public or is involved in terrorism. The commission may then refuse to grant that person's application for release.
The commission is under an obligation to give reasons to the individual. It would be highly detrimental to the security forces, to the RUC and to national security if the commission were forced to give reasons that revealed potentially confidential information supplied to it by the Secretary of State or the RUC.
Paragraph 5 of schedule 2 allows the Secretary of State to make rules for the provision about evidence and information, including provision for the giving of evidence by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and the RUC. The Government may say that the rules they make under schedule 2 will deal with the problem. I should be interested to know whether the Government believe that any rules they may make by statutory instrument or order under schedule 2 could set aside the provisions in clause 11, which require reasons to be given to prisoners in those circumstances.
I will be delighted if it is the Secretary of State's view that the security services, the Secretary of State herself and the RUC will be protected when they give evidence or information to the commission, that the information will be kept confidential and that the sources of their information will be protected and will not be revealed. As the Minister stressed, sensitive issues are involved.
One does not talk about the RUC's knowledge of weapons because that could reveal sources. Similarly, the RUC may not wish to reveal to the commission its sources of information on people whom it thinks are terrorists. Those sources must be protected, and reasons must not be given for doing that. Is there a mechanism in the Bill to prevent reasons from being given? Clause 11 does not permit exceptions. Will the rules to be made under schedule 2 be ultra vires because clause 11 does not permit rules that would make exemptions from it?

Mr. Ingram: We do not yet have the rules to which schedule 2 (5) specifically refers, because we are framing the legislation as we go along, accepting Opposition amendments as well as tabling our own, and that may have an impact on the rules. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who may be concerned about this matter that, through the normal processes, we always protect those who give information. We would never put at risk anyone who was acting in the interests of security.
We are mindful of the need to protect such people and, in the light of my assurances, I do not think that the amendment is necessary. We give the right hon. Gentleman the absolute assurances that information and those who give it will be protected under the rules, which will be made available in draft form in due course.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister. I would never question the Government's integrity on these matters. We should do our absolute utmost to protect sources of information. I was merely concerned about the mechanisms, the legal procedures, in the Bill that would allow the rules to ignore the provisions of clause 11. That clause seems to provide for no exceptions: reasons must be given. I hope that the Minister will seek legal advice about whether an amendment, perhaps one better drafted than mine, is necessary. For example, it could state that reasons would be given in all circumstances except where the Secretary of State has drafted rules under schedule 2.
The Chief Constable of the RUC has to ensure that none of his officers or people acting on their behalf put at risk. Is there not a danger that he might not want to give information if he thought that the rules were inadequate? If he has the slightest fear that it would be possible, perhaps under judicial review, for the


commissioners to be ordered to reveal the sources of information, he may decide that it would be better to let a terrorist be released than to provide it. That is a technical question, and I am happy to let the Minister reflect on it and perhaps answer it tomorrow, if that is appropriate.

Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman adopts a wise approach in allowing me to reflect on that matter, because it involves some sensitive issues. He asked whether schedule 2 and clause 11 are incompatible. I shall reflect on that, and if there is any weakness in the legislation we shall amend it. I am satisfied that it is robust enough to achieve the protection we seek through the rules. Obviously, we have carefully considered the issue because of the matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised. We shall always reflect on valid points, and if there is a weakness, it will be corrected.

Mr. Maclean: In view of the Minister's reasonable response, and on the basis that he will reflect on it, I am delighted to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

INADMISSIBILITY

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 6, line 40, after 'section 5', insert
'of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or of'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 86 and 87.

Mr. Ingram: This is one of those explanations that is difficult to set forth, because it is extremely legalistic. However, I hope that the Committee will bear with me, because it is worth explaining in detail what these Government amendments would do.
As it stands, clause 13 provides that evidence and information given by prisoners to the commissioners are not admissible in certain proceedings. The proceedings in question relate to offences of membership of a proscribed organisation and other activities consistent with membership. Obviously, no offences of violence are listed. This is to allow prisoners to present their cases to the commissioners without fear that statements they might make will be used in evidence in the proceedings in question. It does not grant immunity from prosecution for the offences in question.
The amendments simply add to clause 13 certain proceedings that apply in Great Britain for which provision is already made in clause 13 in relation to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 85 adds a reference in clause 13 to section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, as the clause already refers to the equivalent Northern Ireland provision—section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.
The offence in section 5 of the 1967 Act and the Great Britain equivalent make it an offence to conceal information about an arrestable offence. The effect of the amendment is that evidence given to the commissioners will be inadmissible in proceedings for those offences, but only in so far as the offences relate to an offence of membership of a proscribed organisation, or other activities consistent with membership.
Amendment No. 86 adds a reference in clause 13 to sections 93H and 931 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and sections 18 and 19 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, as the clause already refers to the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions—articles 50 and 51 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Those provisions are concerned with investigations into whether a person has benefited from criminal conduct. The effect of the amendment is that evidence given to the commissioners will be inadmissible in the investigations in question, but this will not, of course, prevent such investigations from taking place.
Amendment No. 87 adds a reference in clause 13 to section 93J of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 20 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, as, again, the clause already refers to the equivalent Northern Ireland provision, namely, article 54 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Those provisions are concerned with court orders for the disclosure of information held by Government Departments. The effect of the amendment is that evidence given to the commissioners will not be capable of being the subject of such a court order. Again, however, there is nothing in the amendments to prevent such court orders being made.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 86, in page 7, line 7, after
'under', insert "section 93H or 931 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 18 or 19 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 or'.

No. 87, in page 7, leave out line 10 and insert
'section 93J of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 20 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 or article 54 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

SENTENCES PASSED OUTSIDE NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 8, leave out lines 6 and 7.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause stand part.

Government new clause 5—Sentences passed outside Northern Ireland.

Government new schedule 1—Sentences passed outside Northern Ireland.

Mr. Corbyn: I am sorry that it has taken the Committee so long to reach this stage. When I tabled amendment No. 91, I was unaware that the Government were intending to table new clause 5 and, in particular,


new schedule 1, which meets many of my concerns. However, it might assist the House if I briefly set out those concerns.
Is it accepted that it is wrong to treat offences committed in Britain as somehow worse than similar offences for which someone was convicted as a result of what happened in Northern Ireland in the past? It is essential that there should be some consistency, which is why I raised this issue in the first place.
The Government new schedule refers to prisoners convicted in Britain and then transferred to Northern Ireland, but there are concerns about how cases involving someone who has been convicted in this country and who is still imprisoned here but who is widely considered to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice will be dealt with.
I cite as an example the case of John Kinsella. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments, but there is a body of opinion that feels that he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice. He has served a considerable proportion of his sentence—indeed, more than a third of it—so, had he been transferred to Northern Ireland, or had he come from Northern Ireland in the first place, his case would have been dealt with within the terms of the Government's proposals.
There also seem to be a disproportionate number of Irish prisoners in Britain who are the victims of miscarriages of justice. The evidence is there, and the Home Office must be well aware of it, because of the number of cases being investigated. One in particular that comes to mind is that of Danny McNamee, who was convicted on very dubious evidence. A raft of information has been handed to the Home Office which suggests that Mr. McNamee is innocent. He has served almost half his sentence, so, again, he ought to come within the ambit of the Bill, especially within the terms of the Government new clause and new schedule. There is widespread concern about the safety of such convictions.
We must address miscarriages of justice as well as the treatment of people who have been convicted where there is no dispute about there having been a miscarriage of justice. There is an undertaking in the Bill that they will be treated differently because of the nature of their offences. The Bill is about looking forward to a more peaceful future in which we recognise the motives of people who have committed offences, but I am concerned about the number of people who are wrongly accused of committing offences which they clearly did not commit, for whom people are prepared to campaign, and who, indeed, attest to their own innocence. We should not forget such people, and I hope that either the Secretary of State or the Minister will reassure me on that point.

Mr. Ingram: I wish to speak against clause 15 stand part and in support of new clause 5 and new schedule 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) recognised that his amendment has now been overtaken by the Government new clause and new schedule. He raised several issues which are not covered in the Bill. Any matters relating to alleged miscarriages of justice are matters for the Criminal Cases Review Commission, so there is a mechanism whereby such matters can be fully considered and any miscarriages of justice, if there are any, put right.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that the fact of someone having been imprisoned in England after what

he believed to be a miscarriage of justice and serving a longer sentence than he would have served had he been transferred to Northern Ireland would form the basis for a review of that sentence by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, because his treatment here might be deemed detrimental to his interests compared with what would have happened had he been moved to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ingram: We are dealing with a very complex matter—the provisions on transferred prisoners. As I said earlier in the debate, I cannot deal now with cases of those who are alleging miscarriages of justice. There is a danger that we are getting into the details of such cases. However, as the matter is complex, 1 shall write to my hon. Friend on it and explain the position. As I told the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), if the Bill contains any specific weaknesses on the matter, we shall attempt to correct them. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that explanation.
Taken together, new clause 5 and new schedule 1 fully and clearly state in the Bill our intention on transferred prisoners. Although it was thought that explanation of our intentions would have to await a draft order, that is no longer the case. The new clause and new schedule are intended to ensure that prisoners who have been transferred to Northern Ireland can be treated as much as possible as if they had been convicted and sentenced in Northern Ireland, and that the same savings and safeguards apply.
Specifically, were the Bill's arrangements to lapse, the new clause and new schedule would ensure that life sentence prisoners who have been given a restricted transfer to Northern Ireland will continue to be dealt with under English or Scottish release arrangements.
I therefore commend the new clause and the new schedule to the Committee.

Mr. William Ross: On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I must protest at the way in which the matter has been handled. The matter of sentences passed outside Northern Ireland was originally dealt with in the Bill in clause 15—"Miscellaneous"—which contained about 26 lines of text. It was then dealt with by new clause 5, which has two lines of text, and then by a new schedule—which appeared only yesterday—that has two full pages of text. It is unreasonable for anyone to say that, at such short notice, we have had time to wade through all the text. The issue is complex, and has many aspects.
If the Government were planning to include the provisions in the Bill, why did they not do so initially, so that we might have considered them—their general principle—in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading? If they had done so, we should have been able last weekend to examine the provisions, and then to reach conclusions on whether we should agree to the new clause and new schedule.
I therefore hope that the provisions will be considered very carefully in the other place, and that any necessary amendment will be made to them. The matter has been dealt with in a completely unsatisfactory manner.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The Bill has been severely guillotined, yet pages—about which we


knew nothing when the guillotine was agreed to—are being added to it. The House's business managers saw to it that Northern Ireland Members did not know about the guillotine motion, which was dealt with on a Thursday night. We were never informed about it. One hon. Member was informed about it, but he saw to it that his colleagues would not be so informed. It is in his interest that the Bill is passed.
It is unfair that a Bill that has been so severely guillotined should have pages added to it by the Government, who now say that we should stick to that guillotine. It is completely unfair. The Minister can laugh if he likes but it is surely not parliamentary procedure to have undigested legislation passing through the House of Commons. For the Minister to laugh and say to us, "Yes, that is what you will get," does not bode well for democratic debate in this place. Surely the Government would be keen to declare what they want so that we may understand their policy and have the opportunity to comment on it. In the time that is available to us, it is impossible to comment on those matters.

Mr. Ingram: Perhaps it is worth while explaining the situation. The matters set forth in the new clause and the new schedule were dealt with within the agreement anyway. It had always been our intention to ensure that what was contained within that part of the agreement was fully reflected in the proposed legislation that we are considering. The problem is that it relates to jurisdictions outwith Northern Ireland—namely, England, Wales and Scotland.
These are complex matters in terms of definitions in finding equivalent offences. We sought to ensure that the clarifications were properly defined to satisfy the Law Officers in the jurisdictions of England, Scotland and Wales and that they were before the House of Commons at as early a stage as possible. If those matters had proved so complex that the difficulties could not be properly squared, we may have been dealing with them in the other place. We have tried to bring them forward as early as possible. It has been a question of timing. As I have said, we have been dealing with complex issues.
I apologise if hon. Members think that they have somehow been disadvantaged, but every political party in Northern Ireland was offered the full opportunity to be taken through the Bill in its entirety. If there had been an area of concern—

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Ingram: Hold on. Let me explain.
It was simply a matter of contacting my office. We could have taken hon. Members through any doubts or questions that they may have had about the application of these provisions. As hon. Members know, we have been very open in the way in which we have brought forward this legislation. We have tried to consult and to amend the Bill as it has developed over the weeks.
We had a commitment to try to get the Bill on to the statute book by the end of June. Of course, we shall not achieve that. However, we shall get it on to the statute book as soon as possible. Again, that is set out in the agreement. If hon. Members feel that they have been

disadvantaged by the way in which those matters have been handled, I ask them to reflect on the way in which they have approached them. If they had approached my office, we could have taken them through the details of these large amendments.

Mr. Ross: The point is that the new clause and the new schedule were not in the Bill. Even those who went to the Minister asking to be taken through the Bill would not have seen them. The new clause and the new schedule were not ready when the rest of the Bill was being printed. The schedule deals with crimes committed within the United Kingdom. It does not tell us anything about individuals who may be transferred, for instance, from the Irish Republic. Why is that matter not included if it has taken so long to sort out these matters?

Rev. Ian Paisley: My party saw the Minister about the Bill. We did not see a draft of the Bill when we consulted him, and he did not know then what the new schedule would be, or what the part of the Bill would be that is now under discussion. The hon. Gentleman says that he had to wait so that the Law Officers in the other jurisdictions could come to an agreement. We can well accept that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has apologised to the Committee, including the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies.
It would be shabby if controversial legislation were put before the House of Commons in this way over and over again. The Minister has a deep difference with the Northern Ireland Members sitting on the Bench that I occupy, including all the Unionist Members present this evening. Some have been mentioned, but they did not even turn up to the meeting that has been referred to, to put their views. It would be wrong if that were done over and again to the people of Northern Ireland. I accept the Minister's apology. However, I hope that, in the future, we shall have the opportunity at least to read the Bill that we are supposed to discuss in the Chamber.

Mr. Corbyn: I find these arguments slightly amazing. The point of a Committee of the whole House is to allow amendments to be put—the Government can even move amendments; that is not against the rules—and accepted by the Committee. There is nothing extraordinary about that. Therefore, the Democratic Unionists' expressions of amazement are ludicrous—to put it mildly.
I moved amendment No. 91 because I wished to draw attention to particular aspects of the legislation that I thought needed further examination. I am pleased that the Government have tabled new clause 5 and new schedule 1, which go a long towards meeting my concerns, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I appreciated the way that he described his new clause and new schedule as "taking over" my amendment—I hope that that is a sign of my new-found influence over the Government in those matters. I can offer them further advice on other subjects, if they wish it. That is no problem: my door is always open and I can offer advice at any time.
I could draw attention to several other issues, but I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Lord, by straying wide of the clause under consideration. I look forward to receiving the Minister's letter on the subjects that I have raised, which I recognise are very complicated. However, I hope that he recognises also that I have drawn attention to two serious miscarriages of justice—namely,


McNamee and John Kinsella—and I hope that that information will be conveyed to both the Home Office and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Miscarriages of justice do no one any good because locking up the wrong person allows a criminal to go free. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 disagreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

ORDERS AND RULES

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 8, leave out lines 22 and 23.

No. 15, in page 8, line 24, at end, insert: '10(7)'.

No. 16, in page 8, line 27, after '3(8)' insert 'or 10(7)'.

No. 17, in page 8, line 36, after '3(8)' insert 'or 10(7)' .—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

EXTENT

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 9, line 5, leave out 'and 15' and insert
`, (Information for victims) and 15'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 3—Information for victims.

Mr. Ingram: During the Second Reading debate, several hon. Members drew attention to the plight of victims and their need to be given some idea of when offenders would be released. That point was also raised by the noble Lord Alderdice and members of the Alliance party, who made powerful representations on behalf of victims.
Victims of an offence or their families should have the right to know when perpetrators of offences are likely to reappear in public as a consequence of their release under the Bill before the Committee. When the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised the matter, I said that I would be happy to consider further questions on the issue, with a view to tabling a Government amendment to tackle that point. I have done that: an amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fulfils my commitment.
The amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State, if it is requested—that is an important point—to provide victims of an offence and members of their families with information about the prisoner sentenced for that offence. That would of course include the date on which the prisoner is to be released, if that has been set. It would also include information about whether the prisoner has made an application under the legislation, and whether it has been accepted or refused. The Secretary of State

would not be required to make information available if she believes that it would put a prisoner at risk. That is an important and necessary safeguard.
I should like to make one or two other points but, in view of the time available and the fact that I understand that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who raised this issue in the first place, wants to comment in the few remaining seconds, I shall not.

Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats are extremely grateful to the Minister—first, for allowing us so much time to respond, and secondly, and more importantly, for including this very important issue in the Bill.
All the issues that have been debated tonight are incredibly important, but this element of the Bill redresses the balance for those whose lives have been wrecked as a result of terrorism. Until now, the Bill was all about the people who had perpetrated crimes and the arrangements for releasing them from prison. The amendment and the new clause redress the balance; they say that Parliament is genuinely concerned about the victims.
We would place a proviso on new clause 3(2), which we should like to follow up on Report. Although some problems surround that proviso, tonight is clearly not the time to raise them. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I say to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who spoke on behalf of the bereaved in Northern Ireland, that they will in no way think that the amendment and the new clause redress the balance. The hon. Gentleman may not have meant that the amendment and the new clause fully redress the balance, but if the Committee and the House think that informing people that those who murdered their loved ones are getting out of prison does anything for those victims' sorrow, darkness and sadness, there is something very wrong.
I want to say that strongly on behalf of the people whom I represent, who have gone through the darkest of all tragedies. Some of them are mere vegetables today; their loved ones have to attend to them. To one such victim, who has been in a coma for a very long time and whose wife has to stand at his bed and attend to his every need, the amendment and the new clause will never balance anything.
There is much dispute about whether providing information to victims is a good or bad thing. Perhaps it is better for people not to know that the person who carried out such an act is being released from prison. Such knowledge could put more fear into their hearts. None the less, I am quite happy that applying for the information should be a matter for the relatives. The Committee should not think that it can balance the books just by accepting the amendment and the new clause.

Mr. Ingram: That is not the intention of the Government amendment and the new clause. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) does not have a monopoly on compassion; he never has had. This issue is one of those particularly difficult ones. That is why the Government set up the commission under Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. I have been charged to take


forward some of the deeply hurtful issues to try to find a way of making them hold. The amendment and the new clause represent one of the ways in which we have given manifest support to that effort. It will not solve all the problems, but it may just begin to address them for some of the people if they so wish. I ask the hon. Gentleman to have a bit more compassion in his heart; to understand what we are trying to achieve rather than condemning it out of hand.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [11 June], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New clause 3

INFORMATION FOR VICTIMS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall provide a statement under this section about a person if he receives a written request to do so and he believes—

(a) that the person about whom the statement is sought is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Northern Ireland for a fixed term of at least five years or for life,
(b) that the sentence was passed in Northern Ireland for a qualifying offence, and
(c) that the person requesting the statement, or a member of his family, was a victim of the offence for which the sentence was passed.

(2) But the Secretary of State shall not provide a statement if he believes that to do so would create a danger to the safety of any person.
(3) A statement under this section about a person shall state—

(a) whether he has made an application under section 3;
(b) if he has made an application, whether it has been granted;
(c) if his application has been granted, whether he has been released and the date on which he has a right to be released, or on which he was released, under section 4 or 6;
(d) if he has been released on licence, whether his licence has been suspended under section 9(2) and, if so, whether it has been confirmed or revoked under section 9(4);
(e) if he has been released on licence under section 4, the date on which the licence will expire.

(4) If the Secretary of State has issued a statement under this section and becomes aware that any of the information in it has ceased to be accurate, he shall send a revised statement to the person who made the original request at his last known address.'—[Mr. Ingram.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

REVOCATION OF DECLARATION

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall apply to Commissioners to revoke a declaration under section 3(1) if, at any time before the

 prisoner is released under section 4 or 6, the Secretary of State believes—

(a) that as a result of an order under section 3(8), or a change in the prisoner's circumstances, an applicable condition in section 3 is not satisfied, or
(b) that evidence or information which was not available to the Commissioners when they granted the declaration suggests that an applicable condition in section 3 is not satisfied.

(2) The Commissioners shall grant an application under this section if (and only if) the prisoner has not been released under section 4 or 6 and they believe—

(a) that as a result of an order under section 3(8), or a change in the prisoner's circumstances, an applicable condition in section 3 is not satisfied, or
(b) that evidence or information which was not available to them when they granted the declaration suggests that an applicable condition in section 3 is not satisfied.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Brought up, read the First and Second tune, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5

SENTENCES PASSED OUTSIDE NORTHERN IRELAND

'. Schedule (Sentences passed outside Northern Ireland) (which makes provision about sentences passed outside Northern Ireland) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

COMMISSIONERS' PROCEDURE

Amendment made: No. 90, in page 12, line 3, at end insert—
'. The rules may provide for proceedings to be held in private except where Commissioners direct otherwise.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

New schedule

SENTENCES PASSED OUTSIDE NORTHERN IRELAND

Eligibility for release

1.—(1) This paragraph applies where a prisoner who makes an application to Commissioners under section 3(1) is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Northern Ireland and the sentence was passed in England and Wales or Scotland.
(2) Where the applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a fixed term, the Commissioners shall grant the application if (and only if)—

(a) the sentence is for a term of at least five years,
(b) the sentence was passed for an offence equivalent to a qualifying offence, and
(c) the second and third conditions in section 3 are satisfied.

(3) Where the applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for life, the Commissioners shall grant the application if (and only if)—

(a) the sentence was passed for an offence equivalent to a qualifying offence, and
(b) the second, third and fourth conditions in section 3 are satisfied.

Equivalent offence

2.—(1) An offence is equivalent to a qualifying offence if it—

(a) was committed before 10th April 1998,


(b) was committed in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland, and
(c) is certified by the appropriate Law Officer as an offence which if it had been committed in Northern Ireland would have been a scheduled offence within the meaning of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, 1978, 1991 or 1996.

(2) If a person who makes an application under section 3 in relation to a sentence for an offence requests the appropriate Law Officer to provide a certificate under sub-paragraph (1)(c) in relation to that offence, the Law Officer shall as soon as reasonably practicable—

(a) grant the certificate, or
(b) refuse the request and notify the person who made the request of the refusal and the reasons for it.

(3) In deciding whether an offence would have been a scheduled offence a Law Officer shall ignore the possibility of a certificate by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland that the offence was not to be treated as a scheduled offence.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph the appropriate Law Officer is—

(a) in relation to an offence committed in England and Wales, the Attorney General, and
(b) in relation to an offence committed in Scotland, the Lord Advocate.

Effect of declaration

3. Where a declaration is granted under section 3 in accordance with paragraph 1, sections 4 to 13 shall have effect with the following modifications.
4.—(1) For section 4(1)(b) there shall be substituted—
'(b) one day for every day of remission which he has lost and not had restored (or additional day which he has been awarded and which has not been remitted) in accordance with prison rules.'.
(2) The reference in section 4(4) to the time when a prisoner could have been discharged under prison rules shall be treated as a reference to the time when he could have been discharged had the relevant sentence been passed in Northern Ireland for a scheduled offence.
5. The references in sections 5 and 10 to section 26 of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 shall be treated as references to any enactment which has the effect of, or an effect similar to, that section and which applies to the prisoner concerned.
6. The following shall be substituted for section 7—

Life prisoners: specified dates

7. In specifying a date for a prisoner under section 6 the Commissioners must have regard to—

(a) any order or direction made in relation to the prisoner under section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (duty to release certain life prisoners);
(b) any order made in relation to the prisoner under section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (duty to release discretionary life prisoners);
(c) any other information, whether relating to the prisoner's case or to other cases, which the Secretary of State submits; and
(d) previous decisions of Commissioners.".

7. For section (Information for victims)(1)(b) there shall be substitute—
'(b) that the sentence was passed for an offence equivalent to a qualifying offence.'.
8.—(1) The reference in section 12(4) to detention at the Secretary of State's pleasure shall be treated as a reference to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure.

(2) For section 12(5)(6) there shall be substituted—
'(b) was passed for an offence equivalent to a qualifying offence.'.

Restricted transfers

9.—(1) Nothing in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (transfer of prisoners: restricted transfers) shall prevent the making of an application under section 3 of this Act.
(2) The following provisions of this paragraph have effect where—

(a) a prisoner is granted a declaration under section 3 in relation to a sentence in accordance with paragraph 1, and
(b) his transfer to Northern Ireland in respect of that sentence was a restricted transfer for the purposes of Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1997 Act.

(3) A fixed term prisoner's transfer shall cease to be a restricted transfer when the declaration under section 3 is made.
(4) A life-sentence prisoner's transfer shall cease to be a restricted transfer when he is released on licence under section 6.
(5) Where a transfer under Part I of Schedule 1 to the 1997 Act ceases to be a restricted transfer in accordance with this paragraph, paragraph 15 of that Schedule shall apply as if the transfer were an unrestricted transfer and had been effected at that time.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That—

(1) the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 1998 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
(2) the Order of the House of 6th November relating to sittings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall be varied by substituting for the words 'and Thursday 2nd July at half past Ten o'clock' the words 'at half past Ten o'clock, and on Thursday 2nd July at Ten o'clock.'
(3) at the sitting on Thursday 2nd July, the Committee shall take questions for oral answer and shall then consider the draft instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
(4) in respect of the sitting on Thursday 2nd July—

(i) Standing Order No. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)) shall have effect with the substitution in paragraph (2) of the Order, for the words 'two and a half, of the word `three'; and
(ii) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)), the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at half past One o' clock .—[Mr. Dowd.]

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 1st June relating to the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (Programme) be amended as follows:
(i) in sub-paragraph 1(1), by leaving out from 'completed' to the end of the sub-paragraph and inserting 'at four sittings and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill at the fourth of those sittings';


(ii) in sub-paragraph 1(2), by leaving out 'On each such allotted day' and inserting 'At each of those sittings except the fourth';
(iii) by inserting after sub-paragraph 1(2)—
'(3) At the fourth of those sittings, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for any part of the period of three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock'; and
(iv) by leaving out paragraph 7.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Orders of the Day — Epilepsy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important subject in the House. Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition in the United Kingdom, and 30,000 people a year are newly diagnosed with it. One in 50 of our population are affected by it at some time in their lives, and in 1996 about 1,000 people in this country died from epilepsy. Despite those stark figures, epilepsy remains a much neglected area. It is still treated as something of a taboo subject, widely misunderstood and often stigmatised.
Late last year a constituent of mine, Tricia Odd, wrote to me and told me about the death of her daughter Katy in April 1997. Katy was 19 and studying radiography and radiotherapy at City university in London when she died suddenly from epilepsy. She had had her first seizure when she was eight years old, and at the age of 13 she wrote a moving school essay under the title, "Epilepsy—The Voice from Within".
Katy wrote:
When I have a fit it's as though someone or something in my head has taken control of my body and mind. I'm not asleep but awake, I'm not dead but alive … This is the voice from within me … but I'm not going to let it rule my life".
Katy's death was a tragic waste of a promising young life. Mrs. Odd and her family are determined that lessons have to be learnt from her daughter's life and death.
When I received Mrs. Odd's letter it had a powerful impact on me. My mother Jean acquired epilepsy when she was 50 as the result of an especially nasty accident. Six years ago, she died suddenly and unexpectedly during an epileptic seizure. Tonight's debate enables the House to draw some lessons from the lives of Katy Odd and Jean Twigg.
I am grateful to Epilepsy Bereaved?, the National Society for Epilepsy and the Royal College of Nursing for their advice and information which has been invaluable in preparing for this evening's debate. In the limited time available, I shall focus on three main areas: first, care for those who are living with epilepsy; secondly, improving the treatment available and raising public awareness about epilepsy; and thirdly, the critical area of research into sudden death in epilepsy.
The quality and availability of care varies enormously for people with epilepsy. Many people have excellent care and access to good services, and in some parts of the country, the availability of care is very good indeed. I am pleased to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of nurses, doctors and other health care workers delivering such care.
There is a real problem with the lack of referral opportunities to specialist clinics. There are very few specialist clinical provisions. Misdiagnosis is, I am sad to say, widespread. I am told that of those attending the National Society for Epilepsy assessment centre, something like one in five have been found not to have epilepsy at all. Yet some have been taking anti-epileptic medication for years. It is a complex condition and, as such, requires a complex multidisciplinary approach. I am


told that, today, two in five cases are not referred to a specialist, only to a general physician, and that one in 12 are not referred to a neurologist at all.
Two specific suggestions have been put to me: first, that the situation that I have described briefly would be improved if it were easier for cross-regional referrals to be carried out; and secondly, that epilepsy should be considered for inclusion in the Government's new arrangements for commissioning specialist services. I would be grateful for my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on those two suggestions.

Mr. Brian White: As the parent of a stepson who has epilepsy, one of things that I feel is deficient in terms of people looking for care is the support services for parents and families. There does not appear to be very much support for the families of people with epilepsy. Will my hon. Friend address that point?

Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, and I will come to some related issues in a moment. In a short debate covering the whole area of epilepsy, it is important that the different issues are addressed. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, which connects very much with the area that I am moving on to.
The stigma attached to epilepsy is very real, and it remains so. Epilepsy is a cause of social exclusion. I am told that unemployment rates for people with epilepsy can be as high as 30 per cent. The training for those working in the health field is often very poor. One of the examples cited to me is that very few, if any, postgraduate courses in neurology include specific teaching on epilepsy. More generally, there is an urgent need for improved training, not only for health care professionals, but for all those working with people with epilepsy—whether they are teachers, employers, prison officers or others.
The education service, and schools in particular, have a great opportunity to educate young people about epilepsy, and thereby to challenge some of the prejudice and reduce some of the stigma associated with epilepsy. One of the points made by the Royal College of Nursing to me was that school nurses can play an important role in educational work. That can have benefits not only in terms of raising general awareness, but for children in schools who have epilepsy, and their families.
There is good practice from which we can learn, and I have been finding out more about it in preparing for tonight's debate. For example, the good work done at the Walton centre in Liverpool was praised by the Audit Commission last year. There are some good examples of work in other countries—notably, I am told, in Holland. I welcome the National Society for Epilepsy's funding of a professional chair in epilepsy at University College hospital—the first in the UK. It is very much to be welcomed and will be positive in moving the subject forward.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider establishing a national service framework to provide agreed standards of epilepsy services across the country, and that he will consider including epilepsy within the local targets for health improvement programmes currently being considered by the Government. Both those ideas merit consideration because of the prevalence of epilepsy and the high death rate that is associated with it.
On the crucial question of research, as recently as the 1980s, few medical textbooks dealt with mortality or sudden death associated with epilepsy. The widespread lack of information and research led a group of families to form Epilepsy Bereaved? in 1993—the group became a charity two years later. From my discussions with members of that group and with Mrs. Odd and her family, it has become clear to me that more information is needed, and that that information needs to be provided in a balanced and appropriate way.

Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for raising this subject. I was made aware of the problems of sudden death in epilepsy by my constituent, Mrs. Eileen Stirling. I agreed to follow up the issue, and want very much to add the voice of Sheffield, Hallam to that of Enfield, Southgate in calling for much more research, particularly into sudden death. I am also concerned about the suicide rate among epileptics, which is a serious problem—the pattern is well attested. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that research is also needed on that.

Mr. Twigg: Absolutely, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of suicide. Research must examine, not only medical questions, but the social and other consequences of epilepsy for people living with epilepsy, and their families. More research is needed, but existing research also needs to be taken seriously—it has often been neglected or ignored, and many of the lessons that we are starting to learn now could have been learnt years, if not decades ago, if that research had been taken seriously.

Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will know that I was first made aware of sudden death in epilepsy through the sudden death of a good friend, William Preston, with whom I was at college in Oxford 10 years ago—he was also known to the hon. Gentleman. An investigation of the causes of sudden death needs to be national, so that there are sufficient numbers to feed into the research. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister say how the Government can support such research projects.

Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. A programme of research needs to be national to ensure that it is fully comprehensive and takes account of the different interests that are involved.
The Clinical Standards Advisory Group is currently studying the availability of clinical services—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will say more on that in his closing remarks. I hope that he can assure the House that the Government will seriously consider the outcome of the group's report, which is due, I think, in about a year.
From my discussions with the various organisations, it has become clear to me that the Government's interest in the subject has been widely and warmly welcomed—tonight's debate is, therefore, timely. However, Epilepsy Bereaved? has emphasised its belief that, in addition to considering general standards, we must deal with the appropriate standards for those who are at greatest risk, particularly those aged between 15 and 35.


Moreover, detailed information must be gathered from families who have been bereaved, especially in recent years. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) suggested, any research or audit that is undertaken must include such details if it is to be fully comprehensive. That is necessary not only to ensure that research is as effective and wide-ranging as possible, but to enable bereaved families to have a voice. Although it is vital that any audit or research listens to the health care professionals and to experts working in the field, it is equally, if not more important, that a voice is given to the bereaved families. Such families have the right, not only to the care and support that they need, but to find out why their loved ones died, which could ensure that such deaths do not occur in future.
All hon. Members have a duty to raise awareness about epilepsy, to challenge the still widely held prejudices and misunderstanding and tackle the social exclusion and other disadvantages that are often experienced by people with epilepsy and their families, to improve the care and support provided throughout the country for those affected and to support and encourage research, so that the death rate from epilepsy is reduced.
In the previous Parliament, the all-party group on epilepsy was very active. I believe that it is still in existence, but it is a little more dormant in the new Parliament and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House, in all parties, will be keen to join me in encouraging wider membership of the group and increasing its activity and profile. Tonight's Adjournment debate is an opportunity to kick-start that process.
I look forward to the response of my hon. Friend the Minister and am confident that he and the Government will take the issues of care, research and increasing public awareness very seriously. By doing so, they will be providing an appropriate and fitting way to remember the life of my late constituent, Katy Odd.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): This is a timely and welcome debate on a subject of considerable importance and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on having chosen it as a topic for our Adjournment debate tonight. The number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have intervened is an indication of the seriousness with which the House takes this issue.
In that regard, we owe a debt of gratitude to Epilepsy Bereaved? and all those who have given their time, efforts and energy to support its valuable work for having raised the consciousness of the House and hon. Members about sudden, unexpected death from epilepsy. The stream of correspondence that has come into my Department from families who are living with the reality of bereavement and who are determined, as Katy Odd's family is, that their loved ones shall not have died in vain has helped to make the whole House conscious of the importance of the issue.
Only a few weeks ago, I met a delegation of epilepsy specialists, carers, family members and others organised by Epilepsy Bereaved? They shared their concerns and experience with me and officials. No one listening to them

could be under any illusions as to the scale of the problem. Almost 1,000 people die each year in the United Kingdom during, or shortly after, an epileptic seizure. Those deaths are due not to accidents caused by the seizure, but to the seizure itself.
As a result of that meeting, which was helpful and productive, we have invited the delegation to consider submitting a bid for a national sentinel audit into epilepsy services. That is a new and extensive form of clinical audit that is very much part of our new national health service and is designed to ensure that we enable practitioners, including those in primary care—I hear what my hon. Friend has said about the important role of general practitioners—to compare their practice against agreed national standards and, we hope, to address areas of shortfall or poor practice as a result.
More research remains to be done, as a number of hon. Members have said. We do not know the extent to which improved standards of care for epilepsy patients would have a direct effect on the death rate from epilepsy seizures. More work needs to be done in that area, but research suggests that some people with epilepsy may be more at risk than others, which may have implications for carers as well as for the medical profession.
For example, in many investigated deaths from epilepsy, patients died alone, often in their sleep. They were also predominantly young people, aged between 15 and 37, which is, as my hon. Friend said, the key age group. If, as I hope, a national sentinel audit bid is successful, it might enable us to identify the at risk population. It would also give some clear pointers to where further research is needed.
I am committed to ensuring that we create a context in which it is possible for such research to take place. The Medical Research Council funds a great deal of research into epilepsy and did work worth more than £600,000 in 1996–97. General practice has made a valuable contribution to epilepsy research, especially in terms of epidemiology, but we cannot be complacent. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group recently awarded a contract to the Institute of Neurology to advise Ministers on standards of clinical care for, access to and availability of services to national health service patients with epilepsy.

Mr. White: Has my hon. Friend considered the experience of other countries, particularly Scandinavian countries and Holland, where a lot of work has been done on the causes of epilepsy and the treatments available? Will he consider using some of the lessons of those schemes in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Boateng: We are committed to considering good practice among our European partner countries and I shall ensure that that is taken on board.
I look forward to receiving a draft report in May 1999, and a report to Ministers is expected in autumn 1999. We already have the benefit of working with the medical profession to raise awareness. The primary care already referred to is vital in that regard. The average general practitioner is unlikely to deal with enough cases to develop expertise and knowledge in epilepsy, yet patients rely heavily on GPs as the gatekeepers to specialist services and the monitors of their conditions. We must ensure that we give GPs the back-up necessary to enable them better to fulfil their role.


The Department of Health has funded a care project run by GPs in Cheshire, which is evaluating provision of services to people with epilepsy in the community. Its interim report highlights a number of areas of concern in relation to epilepsy services, including use of older epilepsy drugs, inadequate follow-through, misdiagnosis and inadequate information. More generally, and more disturbingly, the study identifies a low level of interest and awareness of epilepsy among GPs and shows variations in prescribing and referral habits. That work helps us to see the potential health gains of improvements in epilepsy services. Considerable gains could be made through improved prevention and from accurate diagnosis and the best possible management, both of which require expertise and follow-up.
It is encouraging to note that an increasing number of general practices have undertaken audits of care for patients with epilepsy. Through that, they have developed an interest in epilepsy and in improving services. For some GPs, that has led to developing competence in diagnosis, changing and adjusting medication and providing support and advice. Some practice nurses are also taking an interest in epilepsy and specialist nurses make a contribution to the development of expertise in epilepsy treatment.
I pay tribute to carers, who play a vital role in ensuring that those who suffer from epilepsy have the support and care that they so greatly need. The creation of larger primary care groups will present opportunities to explore new models of care delivery and people with chronic

conditions such as epilepsy will have the opportunity to influence the changes as the new NHS—modern and dependable—unfolds. Carers and voluntary groups will have a special role in that process.
We must grasp the nettle of confronting the real prejudice and stigma that continue to affect those who suffer from epilepsy. That prejudice harks back to the middle ages, with the idea that people with epilepsy were possessed by evil spirits as they suffered their convulsions. Such ideas have no place at all in our society as we move into the next millennium.
I assure hon. Members that we will respond to the challenge laid down by Katy Odd in "Epilepsy—The Voice from Within". In partnership with the voluntary sector, which plays such an important role—I am glad that we have been able to support its efforts with section 64 grants to assist in the development and publication of information—and with carers and epilepsy sufferers themselves, listening to the user, we will ensure that that voice is amplified throughout the service and that the standard of care that we are all entitled to expect in the new NHS is delivered.
That is our commitment to Katy Odd, to Jean Twigg and to their families, as well as to the many others who look to the House for leadership. That leadership will be forthcoming.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.